So if the Bulls currently owe Safeguard £250,000 and rising at a rate of 8% per month (is that 233% APR?) then the Bulls will pay £20,000 interest only to SafeGuard, EACH month.
If the Bulls don't pay any of the loan off then by this time next year the debt to Safeguard will be nearer to £600,000 and the Bulls will be paying £45,000 interest per month.
Looks like the Bulls need to pay the loan off to the Safeguard Security Group asap to stop lining the pockets of the Safeguard Security group.
Unless there's anyone at the Bulls with a vested interest in Safeguard?
Do I also understand that as a secured creditor, when central funding arrives, the directors of the Bulls could direct the cash immediately towards the secured creditors, rather than the preferential or the unsecured creditors?
Frightening. Truly frightening. Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation.
I suspect maybe you are?
All the creditors are frozen as at the date of the administrator's appointment. They remain creditors of OK Bulls Ltd. and have to be settled (to the extent funds allow) by the administrator. They do NOT become creditors of Bradford Bulls Northern Ltd (unless the owner chose to assume the liability...) and so there is no need for any further interest cost to accrue or settlement to be made.
Regarding settling OK Bulls creditors, I'm disappointed that the T&A report did not include this bit: "...BB2014 were making an offer for the purchase of the company's assets coupled with an Intended proposal to trade creditors of OK Bulls for repayment over an extended period in order to try and avoid the six point deduction that would be made due on the club entering into Administration." Leaving aside the vindication of those of us who said there was indeed such an intent (I had been specifically told of the intent, with some details of the specifics, at the time), and who were so derided for saying so in various quarters, I'd love to know just why the RFL seemingly discounted any of this in imposing the six point penalty AND continuing special measures? Since, if Moore & Co WERE likely to be able to deliver on this intent, surely that would have meant a far better return for the creditors (100%, maybe, over time?) than what the administrator is now saying? So far, we have had contradictory statements from both sides, each disputing the other's. I'd like to know the truth of it all, as well as if the eventual bid winner has any plans for settling any creditors?