Langston/Accounts 2009

If anyone is interested this is the text which appears in the 2009 Accounts with regard to repaying Langston

26 Post balance sheet events

- In December 2009, agreement was reached with the unsecured redeemable loan stock holder to stay proceedings against the Club through to 31 December 2010, with the following key terms

- agreement by the Club to commence agreed monthly loan repayments of loan stock from January 2010

- agreement by the loan stock holder to reduce the principal repayable to £lOm (less any monthly payments made) if repaid by 31 December 2010, plus a contingent £5m from the proceeds of stadium naming rights and/or promotion of the Club to the Premier League

- an undertaking by both parties to reach a settlement agreement covering the full term and final settlement of the loan notes by 31 December 2010 if the principal (£10m) is not repaid by that date

This is my belief but the final paragraph commits both sides to reach an agreement covering the 'full term' (i.e. £24m) in a final settlement of the loan notes if a principal sum (£10m) is not repaid by 31 December 2010, which is now the case.

These are some of the paperwork that i've seen, but whilst at the time it all seemed straight forward, yet again I am totally confused, could Keith possibly help to clarify in simple terms for us thickos.lol

These are some of the paperwork that i've seen, but whilst at the time it all seemed straight forward, yet again I am totally confused, could Keith possibly help to clarify in simple terms for us thickos.lol

I'm lost with all this gwin.i think i'm getting there and then somebody else adds their view,which seems acceptable.i'm a lorrydriver not an accountant lol

If anyone is interested this is the text which appears in the 2009 Accounts with regard to repaying Langston

26 Post balance sheet events

- In December 2009, agreement was reached with the unsecured redeemable loan stock holder to stay proceedings against the Club through to 31 December 2010, with the following key terms

- agreement by the Club to commence agreed monthly loan repayments of loan stock from January 2010

- agreement by the loan stock holder to reduce the principal repayable to £lOm (less any monthly payments made) if repaid by 31 December 2010, plus a contingent £5m from the proceeds of stadium naming rights and/or promotion of the Club to the Premier League

- an undertaking by both parties to reach a settlement agreement covering the full term and final settlement of the loan notes by 31 December 2010 if the principal (£10m) is not repaid by that date

This is my belief but the final paragraph commits both sides to reach an agreement covering the 'full term' (i.e. £24m) in a final settlement of the loan notes if a principal sum (£10m) is not repaid by 31 December 2010, which is now the case.

Tony

Doesn't "full term" refer to the length of time for the repayment rathet than the amount?

All it says to me is that they have to reach agreement on the settlement amount and length of time over which this will be paid without mentioning any actual amount or timescale.

I am no legal or accolunting expeet however, this is just my point of view on what that paragraph means.

Regards


Elwood

If anyone is interested this is the text which appears in the 2009 Accounts with regard to repaying Langston

26 Post balance sheet events

- In December 2009, agreement was reached with the unsecured redeemable loan stock holder to stay proceedings against the Club through to 31 December 2010, with the following key terms

- agreement by the Club to commence agreed monthly loan repayments of loan stock from January 2010

- agreement by the loan stock holder to reduce the principal repayable to £lOm (less any monthly payments made) if repaid by 31 December 2010, plus a contingent £5m from the proceeds of stadium naming rights and/or promotion of the Club to the Premier League

- an undertaking by both parties to reach a settlement agreement covering the full term and final settlement of the loan notes by 31 December 2010 if the principal (£10m) is not repaid by that date

This is my belief but the final paragraph commits both sides to reach an agreement covering the 'full term' (i.e. £24m) in a final settlement of the loan notes if a principal sum (£10m) is not repaid by 31 December 2010, which is now the case.

Tony

Doesn't "full term" refer to the length of time for the repayment rathet than the amount?

All it says to me is that they have to reach agreement on the settlement amount and length of time over which this will be paid without mentioning any actual amount or timescale.

I am no legal or accolunting expeet however, this is just my point of view on what that paragraph means.

Regards


Elwood

Thats what it means to me as well. Nothing there about the 2nd agreement (£15m+ naming rights) being ditched either.
The 'full term' according to that will be to 2016. Now if its FULL TERMS then that may be different. Bloody legal stuff - 1 letter can make the meaning change so much.

Maybe the extra info. Carl will be putting out tonight will clear that up.

Maybe its been sorted anyway.

If its more, 'they have met and Sam is keen to get to an agreement' I think my laptop will be going through the window.

Nowhere does that state the figure reduces as low as people believe.

What it states is that Langston agreed not to persue the debt legally if the specified conditions were met.

Club start paying loan repayments.
The 15m figure ( principle less interest plus the contingency 5m) applied ONLY if paid by 31/12/2010.
That both parties would meet to agree the full amount to be paid, and a final payment date should the agreed money not be paid by 31/12/2010.

All that basically means is that as the 10m ( + 5m ) wasn't paid, the lattern clause kicks in - namely club and Langston work to agree the amount and date of payment.

Which to my uneducated reading indicates the debt amount reverts to the full amount unless agreement is reached via further dialogue between the club and Langston.

Nowhere does that state the figure reduces as low as people believe.

What it states is that Langston agreed not to persue the debt legally if the specified conditions were met.

Club start paying loan repayments.
The 15m figure ( principle less interest plus the contingency 5m) applied ONLY if paid by 31/12/2010.
That both parties would meet to agree the full amount to be paid, and a final payment date should the agreed money not be paid by 31/12/2010.

All that basically means is that as the 10m ( + 5m ) wasn't paid, the lattern clause kicks in - namely club and Langston work to agree the amount and date of payment.

Which to my uneducated reading indicates the debt amount reverts to the full amount unless agreement is reached via further dialogue between the club and Langston.

Sorry nerd hats not how I see it. Agreement 2 was for £15m to be paid by 2016. Its in the accounts and 3 was to superceed that. If 3 has run out of time then unless it is specisifally in writing somewhere - and I cant for the life of me think why the club would agree to reverting to agrement 1, then agreement 2 is still in force until it is thrown out in court, which sam tried to do through summary judgement before and failed -so it would be a full case.