• 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.

COSU Statement - 25th June 2024

Forums New posts
kentblues said:
No lender worth their salt is going to accept as security charges on something that has no value. Even the most cursory Those words are banned will show that up.
Click to expand...

Well there are security charges on SUFC. That is a matter of public record.

What we can’t see is if there are any on Mezcal but there almost certainly is.

My experience in this area is well out of date but it certainly use to be the case that lenders would slap a charge on anything they could. As part of a charge there would then be a prohibition on discharging any secured assets.

Any finance/security experts wish to chime in?

kentblues said:
If you’re right then the club sale won’t happen, but I believe it’s not the obstacle being suggested and the sale will happen. Let’s see not long to wait.

Re RH those terms would continue as before as no CRBE can be paid away.
Click to expand...

Let’s hope there’s a way around it. If there is it’s going to take time.

Thankfully the Consortium are buying us some time by paying off Stewarts as the WUP was the immediate threat once the NL intervened as practically it wouldn’t be possible to do before Wednesday.
 
ColinMorrisWalksOnWater said:
OK those with an eye for detail and the appropriate knowledge, my turn to ask a question based on today's statement from COSU, relating to the NL £1m Bond.

If, as stated, COSU do get ownership of the club officially and with the WUP hopefully dismissed tomorrow, if PG Site Services make a similar deal with COSU and are the only other sponsors of the WUP.

The situation is that with no WUP in place AND COSU the official owners of Southend United Football Club, does this then trigger clause 1 of the Bond statement and as such no Bond would be needed as item (i) below would have been successfully completed:

"(i) an ownership agreement with the consortium currently in talks with the Club being successfully concluded, to the satisfaction of the National League and the FA"
Click to expand...
Yes it does as written mean that the clause is met BUT whether its rules or statements the NL has a long history of schoolboy drafting errors and statements that don’t say what they really mean.

So I would assume nothing until confirmation from the club/COSU
 
Yorkshire Blue said:
Well there are security charges on SUFC. That is a matter of public record.

What we can’t see is if there are any on Mezcal but there almost certainly is.

My experience in this area is well out of date but it certainly use to be the case that lenders would slap a charge on anything they could. As part of a charge there would then be a prohibition on discharging any secured assets.

Any finance/security experts wish to chime in?



Let’s hope there’s a way around it. If there is it’s going to take time.

Thankfully the Consortium are buying us some time by paying off Stewarts as the WUP was the immediate threat once the NL intervened as practically it wouldn’t be possible to do before Wednesday.
Click to expand...

The charges on SUFC Ltd are from SELUk Ltd and Mezcal - the parental chain and Roots Hall Ltd. So Ron can get them removed …..
 
Yorkshire Blue said:
Well there are security charges on SUFC. That is a matter of public record.

What we can’t see is if there are any on Mezcal but there almost certainly is.

My experience in this area is well out of date but it certainly use to be the case that lenders would slap a charge on anything they could. As part of a charge there would then be a prohibition on discharging any secured assets.

Any finance/security experts wish to chime in?



Let’s hope there’s a way around it. If there is it’s going to take time.

Thankfully the Consortium are buying us some time by paying off Stewarts as the WUP was the immediate threat once the NL intervened as practically it wouldn’t be possible to do before Wednesday.
Click to expand...

Thank you to all those looking at this latest statement and working through the practicalities & hurdles that may still exist.

On the surface the statement sounds marvellous but having read all of the above I'm not sure that the issues (e.g. how to decouple) have been solved - or at least are not in the public domain at the moment.

Perhaps the £1 million bond issue may be dealt with but the National League are still going to want sufficient reassurance(s) that Southend United are a viable organisation for the coming season (or perhaps 10 seasons if we now fit the Gateshead scenario).

We (all of us) are at least making progress & I don't mean to be pessimistic but more is required before I can be sure we are "out of the woods". [fingers crossed]
 
LBBlue said:
The charges on SUFC Ltd are from SELUk Ltd and Mezcal - the parental chain and Roots Hall Ltd. So Ron can get them removed …..
Click to expand...

Removing the SEL one should be ok as that is now free from charges but if Mezcal is subject to a similar charge - and I believe that’s where the money was coming from, it is likely to be - can Mezcal dispose of security in its favour without the consent of its lender?
 
Tomrow is another day in the chapter of Southend united After last night tuesday I thought we was dead and buryed .Then along came these knights in shining armor .Who put smiles back on every shrimpers faces . Now we move on to weds Will all the new found joy contiue I do hope so Thank you the 10 wonderful men for today .
 
Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Burton10:30amThe Rolls Building Court 30 Winding up petitionCR-2024-001132 Southend United Football Club Limited (The)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

.



Club News
Fixtures and Results
League Table
SUFC Ticket Stats
Shrimpers Trust
SoccerBase
SUEPA (Ex Players)
Shrimperzone on Facebook
Shrimperzone on Twitter
Shrimperzone on Instagram
SUFC Exiles


ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top