Charge for Hull City re MacQuarrie Bank
- Thread starter petersaxton
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Can you copy and paste or summarise Pete, as the link won't open.
Can’t open the link but not sure what connection we have to a National Trust property near Manchester Airport?
I suspect it relates to the document you can view on this link and selecting the .pdf.
https://find-and-update.company-inf.../04032392/charges/JiIbebmGEnzKo7ZkODSxBNyHeFU
I have little to no idea what any of it means.
https://find-and-update.company-inf.../04032392/charges/JiIbebmGEnzKo7ZkODSxBNyHeFU
I have little to no idea what any of it means.
You must log in or register to see images
From Google...
Hull City did not receive a fine or a specific "charge" from the football authorities related to Macquarie Bank.
The connection between Hull City and Macquarie Bank relates to the bank holding a mortgage charge (a type of loan security) on the club's assets, which was later released, and Macquarie's involvement in other, separate business dealings within the city of Hull.
Here is a breakdown of the known connections:
Hull City did not receive a fine or a specific "charge" from the football authorities related to Macquarie Bank.
The connection between Hull City and Macquarie Bank relates to the bank holding a mortgage charge (a type of loan security) on the club's assets, which was later released, and Macquarie's involvement in other, separate business dealings within the city of Hull.
Here is a breakdown of the known connections:
- Mortgage Charge: In December 2010, when the Allam family rescued the club, one potential barrier to a takeover was a mortgage charge on the Tigers held by Macquarie Bank. This charge was a form of security for a loan, and its release meant the only outstanding loan was that owed to the Allams themselves.
- Transfer Deal Financing: In a separate context, details within a transfer deal (specifically related to a player moving to West Ham from Leicester, which involved a sell-on clause for a former club Brondby) showed West Ham was due to pay yearly instalments to Macquarie Bank, suggesting the bank had financed a portion of that transfer fee. This is a common practice in football financing, not a "charge" or fine against Hull City.
- KCOM Takeover: Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets (MIRA) took over KCOM, a major telecommunications firm based in Hull, in a deal worth £627 million in 2019. This was a corporate acquisition and unrelated to Hull City's football operations, other than KCOM being a significant local company and former stadium sponsor.
Looks to me like we've taken a loan out against the money we will receive in future from the sale of Alzate?
"A security assignment of receivables is a legal agreement where a company transfers its accounts receivable (money owed to it) to a lender as collateral to secure a loan. The lender can then claim these receivables if the company defaults on the loan. This process is a form of asset-based financing, allowing companies to obtain short-term funding by leveraging their future income streams."
"A security assignment of receivables is a legal agreement where a company transfers its accounts receivable (money owed to it) to a lender as collateral to secure a loan. The lender can then claim these receivables if the company defaults on the loan. This process is a form of asset-based financing, allowing companies to obtain short-term funding by leveraging their future income streams."
HULL CITY TIGERS LIMITED
and
MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED, LONDON BRANCH
SECURITY ASSIGNMENT OF
RECEIVABLES IN RELATION TO
THE TRANSFER OF STEVEN
ALZATE
is this normal practice ? Or another indicator that we have serious cash flow issues?
they must have cash flow issues
we are only talking about a few million pounds
It's unusual for a charge to be shown in full like that, normally on Companies House it just shows that a charge has been set up, it doesn't show the details.
I'm not 100% sure, it's not something I've ever heard of.
I have just had a look at other English clubs who sold players to the MLS this summer.
Sunderland sold Triantis to Minnesota, and they also have a recent charge with Macquarie Bank, but theirs doesn't seem to be as detailed as ours, so there is no mention of the MLS on that one.
https://find-and-update.company-inf.../00049116/charges/NEOFPRbBNoN_4nFBmO_WIV2Y8ws
Watford also have a charge for their sale of Juan Camilo Hernandez Suarez to the MLS.
https://find-and-update.company-inf.../00104194/charges/3VTOpgm2oAnOS4UkLYVeHv7Utvg
Clear as mud tbh, hopefully someone else can shed some more light.
https://www.sunderlandecho.com/spor...nderland-news-finances-premier-league-5377413
Looks like Sunderland's relates to future TV money.
Looks like Sunderland's relates to future TV money.
Looks to me like we’ve mortgaged to Álzate transfer fee. Further evidence that the club is being run into the ground.
I believe Maguire explained Sunderland’s approach as a way to manage regular cash flow, since Premier League and EFL payments tend to arrive in chunks rather than monthly — which doesn’t always align with when outgoings occur. I imagine player instalments can be equally frustrating and out of sync.
While this is linked to Alzate, it does raise broader questions around cash flow and could be viewed negatively. Our main issue over the summer was waiting on incoming funds — or in Barry’s case, leveraging future money from the Philogene deal. That didn’t work out, and it highlighted how misaligned our incomings and outgoings were.
The positive spin on the Alzate situation is that, rather than risk missing payments due to timing mismatches, we’ve opted to bring the funds forward (at a cost) to avoid penalties. It’s not ideal, but could be seen it’s a proactive step to stay ahead of potential issues.
While this is linked to Alzate, it does raise broader questions around cash flow and could be viewed negatively. Our main issue over the summer was waiting on incoming funds — or in Barry’s case, leveraging future money from the Philogene deal. That didn’t work out, and it highlighted how misaligned our incomings and outgoings were.
The positive spin on the Alzate situation is that, rather than risk missing payments due to timing mismatches, we’ve opted to bring the funds forward (at a cost) to avoid penalties. It’s not ideal, but could be seen it’s a proactive step to stay ahead of potential issues.