Football League Examines Cardiff City Mortgage is all it

Interesting Article in the Guardian hmm.
Is it saying Ranson has to be paid first ?




Football League examines whether Cardiff City mortgage is all it seems
• Mortgage taken out with Player Finance Fund by Cardiff in May
• Caymans-based PFF has a mortgage over transfer receipts



Matt Scott
The Guardian, Wednesday 2 March 2011
Article history

Cardiff City Stadium, home of the club since 2009.


The Football League is investigating whether a mortgage agreement could prevent Cardiff City selling their players without the prior written consent of Coventry City's owner, Ray Ranson.



According to Cardiff's accounts the mortgage was struck last May with a Cayman Islands-registered company called the Player Finance Fund. The accounts, lodged at Companies House last week, say the club already had an existing £3.5m loan with a company called Sport Asset Capital, which is a hedge fund managed by Ranson.




The accounts of Cardiff's parent company show that when the SAC loan was renegotiated last May, it emerged as a new mortgage charged against the club by the Player Finance Fund. The League wants to know whether this new loan means Cardiff may have signed up to a situation where Ranson's permission would be needed to transfer players. The Player Finance Fund mortgage documents explain how the loan works, saying that the fund has a mortgage over Cardiff's transfer receipts. Setting out the "mortgaged property" the loan agreement states: "All monetary consideration receivable or received by [Cardiff] for the transfer or sale of any professional footballer contracted to and employed by the company from time to time whose respective registrations with the Football League Limited and the Football Association are held by [Cardiff]." So all transfer funds received by Cardiff have been mortgaged.



But the real kicker seems to come later. This is a "negative pledge", setting out what Cardiff may not do according to their responsibilities under the mortgage. This states: "The company shall not without the prior written consent of the Player Finance Fund sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of or part with the charged property or any part thereof or interest therein." Cardiff's lawyer, Alan Whiteley, last night said this does not permit the lender to override transfer activity. "The sole interest is in the proceeds of the sale once a player has been sold," said Whiteley. "The players themselves do not form part of the assets."







Third-party influence over footballers has long been a controversial area and when West Ham United fell foul of related Premier League rules it culminated in Sheffield United receiving £27.5m in compensation after the notorious Carlos Tevez affair. There is no suggestion that Cardiff have fallen foul of the same rules, since the Football League did not adopt Premier League regulations until last August, three months after the mortgage was struck. When Digger contacted the Football League to inform it of the situation, it said: "The Football League is making inquiries in respect to this matter."

Gethin Jenkins, Cardiff's chief executive, said: "We have submitted our accounts in accordance with Football League regulations. Should there be any queries we will happily assist them when required." Ranson declined to comment when contacted yesterday. The Football League's rules on "interests in more than one football club" suggest it could be owed an explanation. These rules state: "Except with the prior written consent of the [Football League] board a person, or any associate of that person, who is interested in a club cannot at the same time be interested in any other football club."

Cameron still best pals with England bid flops

In December, not to put too fine a point on it, Fifa's executive committee made a mug of David Cameron. Unlike Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister who refused to turn up to the vote to decide the 2018 World Cup host, our man took to the stage to beseech Fifa to give England the tournament, for the good of the game as they say. History records that the net result was for only one of the 21 votes that England did not directly control to come their way.

But Cameron has proved whom he blames for this humiliation and it is not the England 2018 bid team, whose intelligence was that Fifa votes could be won if he sprinkled his stardust. For on Monday night Cameron hosted a private reception at 10 Downing Street for those involved in the World Cup bid, its delegation headed by David Dein.

I think that Alan Whitely is probably right.

It's a bit like a mortage over your house. You don't need the bank or building society's permission to sell your house but you have to pay them back from the sale monies. Their interest is in the proceeds of sale and it seems this is similar.

A rather strange clause to have in the agreement though and one that could cause confusion. Perhaps the lawyers should have clarified it before it was signed.

Of course this was yet another scheme entered into by our former chairman on the road to financial oblivion he was taking us along.

Unfortunately I've a feeling the club will be dealing with the legacy of Mr Peter Ridsdale for quite some time to come.

so if Matthews was valued at £4.5mil for the mortgage but goes to Celtic for free ( ok £200k compo ) then how does that effect the loan given to City and any further repayment costs considering the de-valuation of the the player ?? If I was the lending company Id be a bit pissed off with this

From Facebook



Mike Pedler
There isn't smoke without fire especially when PR is involved in proceedings
52 minutes ago · Like



Mark Price
The English fa are scared of the possibility of the bluebirds going up do they are looking into every nook and cranny to see if there is anything illegal they can pull them up on. Mind you where pr is concerned your right there could be dodgy dealings, the mans a out and out crook
31 minutes ago · Like





Steven Price
The FA are already trying to keep us out of the Premiership by sending shit officials to our games week after week.How many goals and points have these cheats cost?

Interesting Article in the Guardian hmm.
Is it saying Ranson has to be paid first ?




Football League examines whether Cardiff City mortgage is all it seems
• Mortgage taken out with Player Finance Fund by Cardiff in May
• Caymans-based PFF has a mortgage over transfer receipts



Matt Scott
The Guardian, Wednesday 2 March 2011
Article history

Cardiff City Stadium, home of the club since 2009.


The Football League is investigating whether a mortgage agreement could prevent Cardiff City selling their players without the prior written consent of Coventry City's owner, Ray Ranson.



According to Cardiff's accounts the mortgage was struck last May with a Cayman Islands-registered company called the Player Finance Fund. The accounts, lodged at Companies House last week, say the club already had an existing £3.5m loan with a company called Sport Asset Capital, which is a hedge fund managed by Ranson.




The accounts of Cardiff's parent company show that when the SAC loan was renegotiated last May, it emerged as a new mortgage charged against the club by the Player Finance Fund. The League wants to know whether this new loan means Cardiff may have signed up to a situation where Ranson's permission would be needed to transfer players. The Player Finance Fund mortgage documents explain how the loan works, saying that the fund has a mortgage over Cardiff's transfer receipts. Setting out the "mortgaged property" the loan agreement states: "All monetary consideration receivable or received by [Cardiff] for the transfer or sale of any professional footballer contracted to and employed by the company from time to time whose respective registrations with the Football League Limited and the Football Association are held by [Cardiff]." So all transfer funds received by Cardiff have been mortgaged.



But the real kicker seems to come later. This is a "negative pledge", setting out what Cardiff may not do according to their responsibilities under the mortgage. This states: "The company shall not without the prior written consent of the Player Finance Fund sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of or part with the charged property or any part thereof or interest therein." Cardiff's lawyer, Alan Whiteley, last night said this does not permit the lender to override transfer activity. "The sole interest is in the proceeds of the sale once a player has been sold," said Whiteley. "The players themselves do not form part of the assets."







Third-party influence over footballers has long been a controversial area and when West Ham United fell foul of related Premier League rules it culminated in Sheffield United receiving £27.5m in compensation after the notorious Carlos Tevez affair. There is no suggestion that Cardiff have fallen foul of the same rules, since the Football League did not adopt Premier League regulations until last August, three months after the mortgage was struck. When Digger contacted the Football League to inform it of the situation, it said: "The Football League is making inquiries in respect to this matter."

Gethin Jenkins, Cardiff's chief executive, said: "We have submitted our accounts in accordance with Football League regulations. Should there be any queries we will happily assist them when required." Ranson declined to comment when contacted yesterday. The Football League's rules on "interests in more than one football club" suggest it could be owed an explanation. These rules state: "Except with the prior written consent of the [Football League] board a person, or any associate of that person, who is interested in a club cannot at the same time be interested in any other football club."

Cameron still best pals with England bid flops

In December, not to put too fine a point on it, Fifa's executive committee made a mug of David Cameron. Unlike Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister who refused to turn up to the vote to decide the 2018 World Cup host, our man took to the stage to beseech Fifa to give England the tournament, for the good of the game as they say. History records that the net result was for only one of the 21 votes that England did not directly control to come their way.

But Cameron has proved whom he blames for this humiliation and it is not the England 2018 bid team, whose intelligence was that Fifa votes could be won if he sprinkled his stardust. For on Monday night Cameron hosted a private reception at 10 Downing Street for those involved in the World Cup bid, its delegation headed by David Dein.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=38225

This Deal was totally set up by The Riddler with Ray Ranson.

Overthemoon


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=38225 [/quote]





Oops

Is this anything to do with what Carl mentioned I'm his update about PMG losing out on Matthews? They'd mortgaged him at a value of 4million or something like that

Overthemoon


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=38225

Oops [/quote]

Sorry Annis, but I couldn't sleep last night, what with you teasing us about the "Possible" return of Ramsey!

Overthemoon


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=38225

Oops

Sorry Annis, but I couldn't sleep last night, what with you teasing us about the "Possible" return of Ramsey! [/quote]


I Will try and get more info on it either by today but def by tom at the latest

Is this anything to do with what Carl mentioned I'm his update about PMG losing out on Matthews? They'd mortgaged him at a value of 4million or something like that

Adam,

I am not the best on all this,All I ever listen to are the Final Facts, I will let Carl/Keith/Tony Williams/Nerd explain it better

I remember this paper saying the FL were investigating the terms of CB loan move last summer when in truth the FL had only asked for clarification of the terms.

I think that is what has happened here the FL has asked for clarification and I believe when they have it no further action will be taken.

FL rules on Interests In More Than One Club 84.2.5 Has lent or gifted money to or gaurantee the debts or obligations of that football club, otherwise than in ordinary course of banking.

This mortgage by it's very nature would surely come under the course of ordinary course of banking. Would we be better off without it of course we would but this is another mess left us by PR and the real question here is if there is a problem PR is the person responsible for breaking FL rules.

If that is the case surely the FL would be better off deciding he is not a fit and proper person to be involved in the administration of football clubs. Now that would be a result.

be interesting to know if Ledley was mortgaged and how much value was on his head at the time ??

Is this anything to do with what Carl mentioned I'm his update about PMG losing out on Matthews? They'd mortgaged him at a value of 4million or something like that

Adam,

I am not the best on all this,All I ever listen to are the Final Facts, I will let Carl/Keith/Tony Williams/Nerd explain it better

I'm no better haha, my heads still mushed from the loan notes

Whatever it is, it's unwelcome

From first sight it doesn't seem to be the financial side which the FL are worried about, it's whether Ray Ranson (Chairman of Coventry City) could have direct influence (in this case transfer policy) over another club which would breach FL rules.

IMO looking at it from someone with limited expertise and facts on the matter it would seem possible in theory (the written consent) that RR could block the transfer of say Jay Bothroyd during the January window if he thought the offer was not good enough as his Hedge Fund would prefer to draw interest on the loan instead.

That's not saying he did or would, just that the possiblity exisits and that would breach FL rules.

Tony,

The deal was agreed before the Fl adopted the PL rules on this, hence there's no real prospect of us being damaged by this. We've broken no rules. If we'd done the deal now, then yes, guilty.

Any investigation, as you rightly point out, would be on the degree of influence Ray Ranson has over our transfer dealings, if any - and if that materially breaches the regulations about having controlling interest over more than one club.

If the latter can be proven, then my uninfromed view would be that it's Ranson who would bear the brunt of any punishment.

If however, we are punished in any way, shape or form, then it may be interesting to see if CCFC would have a legal claim for damages against the directors involved in making the deal.

What I'd say is that the FL would want clarification upon that one particular clause more than anything else.

I wondered why the Ray Ranson/Cayman Island scheme had gone quiet, i didn't think it had gone away.

Is this anything to do with what Carl mentioned I'm his update about PMG losing out on Matthews? They'd mortgaged him at a value of 4million or something like that

Adam,

I am not the best on all this,All I ever listen to are the Final Facts, I will let Carl/Keith/Tony Williams/Nerd explain it better

I mentioned this charge over transfer money in my reply to Tony`s thread a few days ago , but I didn`t know then what players were covered by the charge.

The Guardian seems to be quoting from the actual legal document which , if so , says that it covers ALL players. So it seems there must be a legal document in place (called a Deed of Priorities) between Sports Asset and PMG who previously had a similar charge registered to decide who gets the proceeds of transfer. This is a document which wouldn`t have to be published anywhere so saying who gets what is not possible without seeing it.

Should be no problem with the League over this. As Alan Whiteley is quoted , the right is to the cash arising from a sale , not to the players themselves. So the club can choose to sell who they want for what they want as long as they pay over the proceeds to the chargeholders. The chargeholder can`t control the transfer itself.

Keith

Is this anything to do with what Carl mentioned I'm his update about PMG losing out on Matthews? They'd mortgaged him at a value of 4million or something like that

Adam,

I am not the best on all this,All I ever listen to are the Final Facts, I will let Carl/Keith/Tony Williams/Nerd explain it better

I mentioned this charge over transfer money in my reply to Tony`s thread a few days ago , but I didn`t know then what players were covered by the charge.

The Guardian seems to be quoting from the actual legal document which , if so , says that it covers ALL players. So it seems there must be a legal document in place (called a Deed of Priorities) between Sports Asset and PMG who previously had a similar charge registered to decide who gets the proceeds of transfer. This is a document which wouldn`t have to be published anywhere so saying who gets what is not possible without seeing it.

Should be no problem with the League over this. As Alan Whiteley is quoted , the right is to the cash arising from a sale , not to the players themselves. So the club can choose to sell who they want for what they want as long as they pay over the proceeds to the chargeholders. The chargeholder can`t control the transfer itself.

Keith

Cheers Keith

I mentioned this charge over transfer money in my reply to Tony`s thread a few days ago , but I didn`t know then what players were covered by the charge.

The Guardian seems to be quoting from the actual legal document which , if so , says that it covers ALL players. So it seems there must be a legal document in place (called a Deed of Priorities) between Sports Asset and PMG who previously had a similar charge registered to decide who gets the proceeds of transfer. This is a document which wouldn`t have to be published anywhere so saying who gets what is not possible without seeing it.

Should be no problem with the League over this. As Alan Whiteley is quoted , the right is to the cash arising from a sale , not to the players themselves. So the club can choose to sell who they want for what they want as long as they pay over the proceeds to the chargeholders. The chargeholder can`t control the transfer itself.

Keith

Surely this statement that the chargeholder can't control the transfer is in direct conflict with the legal document that states:

"The company shall not without the prior written consent of the Player Finance Fund sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of or part with the charged property or any part thereof or interest therein."

How can the club be free to sell who they want if in order to do so they need written prior consent off the chargeholder as that quote surely demonstrates that the chargeholder has a veto over such dealings? Otherwise, why would prior written consent be required?

I mentioned this charge over transfer money in my reply to Tony`s thread a few days ago , but I didn`t know then what players were covered by the charge.

The Guardian seems to be quoting from the actual legal document which , if so , says that it covers ALL players. So it seems there must be a legal document in place (called a Deed of Priorities) between Sports Asset and PMG who previously had a similar charge registered to decide who gets the proceeds of transfer. This is a document which wouldn`t have to be published anywhere so saying who gets what is not possible without seeing it.

Should be no problem with the League over this. As Alan Whiteley is quoted , the right is to the cash arising from a sale , not to the players themselves. So the club can choose to sell who they want for what they want as long as they pay over the proceeds to the chargeholders. The chargeholder can`t control the transfer itself.

Keith

Surely this statement that the chargeholder can't control the transfer is in direct conflict with the legal document that states:

"The company shall not without the prior written consent of the Player Finance Fund sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of or part with the charged property or any part thereof or interest therein."

How can the club be free to sell who they want if in order to do so they need written prior consent off the chargeholder as that quote surely demonstrates that the chargeholder has a veto over such dealings? Otherwise, why would prior written consent be required?

I agree that the wording leads to confusion.

However , what you have to remember is what asset is covered by the charge.

It is the cash received AFTER the player is sold , not the player itself.

So the "permission" clause is to make sure that the cash is paid over to PFF and not diverted elsewhere (remember it was Ridsdale they were dealing with )unless it is with the express written permission of PFF. The restriction on the club is that it can`t use the transfer cash received to reinvest in replacement players unless PFF allow them to (well up to the limit of the £3.5m they are owed anyway)

Keith

I agree that the wording leads to confusion.

However , what you have to remember is what asset is covered by the charge.

It is the cash received AFTER the player is sold , not the player itself.

So the "permission" clause is to make sure that the cash is paid over to PFF and not diverted elsewhere (remember it was Ridsdale they were dealing with )unless it is with the express written permission of PFF. The restriction on the club is that it can`t use the transfer cash received to reinvest in replacement players unless PFF allow them to (well up to the limit of the £3.5m they are owed anyway)

Keith

Fair enough if that's the case, albeit still not a healthy deal for the club.

Out of interest though, where is the info that it is the cash, not the player stated?

"Setting out the "mortgaged property" the loan agreement states: "All monetary consideration receivable or received by [Cardiff] for the transfer or sale of any professional footballer contracted to and employed by the company from time to time whose respective registrations with the Football League Limited and the Football Association are held by [Cardiff]." So all transfer funds received by Cardiff have been mortgaged."

THAT is what the mortgage is over - transfer fees.

Is this anything to do with what Carl mentioned I'm his update about PMG losing out on Matthews? They'd mortgaged him at a value of 4million or something like that

Adam,

I am not the best on all this,All I ever listen to are the Final Facts, I will let Carl/Keith/Tony Williams/Nerd explain it better

I mentioned this charge over transfer money in my reply to Tony`s thread a few days ago , but I didn`t know then what players were covered by the charge.

The Guardian seems to be quoting from the actual legal document which , if so , says that it covers ALL players. So it seems there must be a legal document in place (called a Deed of Priorities) between Sports Asset and PMG who previously had a similar charge registered to decide who gets the proceeds of transfer. This is a document which wouldn`t have to be published anywhere so saying who gets what is not possible without seeing it.

Should be no problem with the League over this. As Alan Whiteley is quoted , the right is to the cash arising from a sale , not to the players themselves. So the club can choose to sell who they want for what they want as long as they pay over the proceeds to the chargeholders. The chargeholder can`t control the transfer itself.

Keith

Thanks for that Keith, just as I thought but wasn't so sure. I would imagine this sort of thing is very common throughout football.

I mentioned this charge over transfer money in my reply to Tony`s thread a few days ago , but I didn`t know then what players were covered by the charge.

The Guardian seems to be quoting from the actual legal document which , if so , says that it covers ALL players. So it seems there must be a legal document in place (called a Deed of Priorities) between Sports Asset and PMG who previously had a similar charge registered to decide who gets the proceeds of transfer. This is a document which wouldn`t have to be published anywhere so saying who gets what is not possible without seeing it.

Should be no problem with the League over this. As Alan Whiteley is quoted , the right is to the cash arising from a sale , not to the players themselves. So the club can choose to sell who they want for what they want as long as they pay over the proceeds to the chargeholders. The chargeholder can`t control the transfer itself.

Keith

Surely this statement that the chargeholder can't control the transfer is in direct conflict with the legal document that states:

"The company shall not without the prior written consent of the Player Finance Fund sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of or part with the charged property or any part thereof or interest therein."

How can the club be free to sell who they want if in order to do so they need written prior consent off the chargeholder as that quote surely demonstrates that the chargeholder has a veto over such dealings? Otherwise, why would prior written consent be required?

I agree that the wording leads to confusion.

However , what you have to remember is what asset is covered by the charge.

It is the cash received AFTER the player is sold , not the player itself.

So the "permission" clause is to make sure that the cash is paid over to PFF and not diverted elsewhere (remember it was Ridsdale they were dealing with )unless it is with the express written permission of PFF. The restriction on the club is that it can`t use the transfer cash received to reinvest in replacement players unless PFF allow them to (well up to the limit of the £3.5m they are owed anyway)

Keith

In short 'property' would actually mean the 'cash value' of the assest after sale not the actual player registration? If that is the case then I can see exactly where you are coming from and Ray Ranson wouldn't be in a position to influence transfer policy and therefore breach league rules.

Does it mean we can sell players and get f**k all for them ?

Does it mean we can sell players and get f**k all for them ?

No , the club still benefits from the full amount the player is sold for , it just can`t choose what it does with the money - it has to go to pay off one specific creditor , and so takes that liability out of the balance sheet.

Is this anything to do with what Carl mentioned I'm his update about PMG losing out on Matthews? They'd mortgaged him at a value of 4million or something like that

Adam,

I am not the best on all this,All I ever listen to are the Final Facts, I will let Carl/Keith/Tony Williams/Nerd explain it better

I mentioned this charge over transfer money in my reply to Tony`s thread a few days ago , but I didn`t know then what players were covered by the charge.

The Guardian seems to be quoting from the actual legal document which , if so , says that it covers ALL players. So it seems there must be a legal document in place (called a Deed of Priorities) between Sports Asset and PMG who previously had a similar charge registered to decide who gets the proceeds of transfer. This is a document which wouldn`t have to be published anywhere so saying who gets what is not possible without seeing it.

Should be no problem with the League over this. As Alan Whiteley is quoted , the right is to the cash arising from a sale , not to the players themselves. So the club can choose to sell who they want for what they want as long as they pay over the proceeds to the chargeholders. The chargeholder can`t control the transfer itself.

Keith

Thank you Keith. A good read

Looks a bit of a fuss over nothing. As usual the press trying to stir sh1t about us.

http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/ ... ndex.shtml