You can’t say I didn’t warn you!

[Sutekh]

According to the Internet, the top three sales from clubs in League 1 are:
£11M (Lookman)
£8M (Delph)
£3.5M (Barnett)

The idea that a League 1 club can regularly sell a player for £10M while in League 1 to subsidise a Cat 1 academy is very ambitious...

Well maybe 2 players at £5m ea. then

[Extended-Phenotype]

Strongly #TeamBrogue for this one.

I think you are conflating raising concerns (“X/Y/Z is a bit of a worry”) with ragebait (“See? THIS is clear proof that RC is a monster!!!”).

I don’t personally have any problem with the former. I find/found the same things concerning. The latter isn’t something any rational person should be encouraging, fwliw.

As for the announcement, good that some things have been cleared up, shame the loan aspect wasn’t addressed. Hopefully someone will press him about it, but it’s more than plausible for it to be something that looks worse without elaboration.

[Snowflake Royal]

Olise 21/22 £9m +£9m

Tshibola 16/17 £5m

Hector 15/16 £5m

Alex McCarthy 14/15 £3m

Shane Long 11/12 £5m

Those prices are from transfermarkt. There are players of huge quality that slipped through such as Gittens, too good to stay clearly, but for a while back then the Reading academy was paying for itself nicely. Agreed that in League 1 we aren't getting these prices, but players do sometimes come out of nowhere to an extent.

Omar Richards was largely non descript and a year later after a breakout season was signing for Bayern! It can happen.

There's some players of good value in there, but we're talking about Olise level, so that's him and Sigurdsson.

Olise was seasons ago now, where's the next one for multi-millions?

Even Sigurdsson some way short of Olise. Peaked at Spurs and Everton, compared with being a key player for Munich and France. A good benchmark for him would be how much Birmingham made from Bellingham, whereas Sigurdsson compares more to a Watkins or Maddison.

So you'd probably say c. £20m - £25m initially for both, but then another c. £20m again for Olise from a better sell on clause.

Value, Gylfi £7m is comparable to Olise

[WestYorksRoyal]

There's some players of good value in there, but we're talking about Olise level, so that's him and Sigurdsson.

Olise was seasons ago now, where's the next one for multi-millions?

Even Sigurdsson some way short of Olise. Peaked at Spurs and Everton, compared with being a key player for Munich and France. A good benchmark for him would be how much Birmingham made from Bellingham, whereas Sigurdsson compares more to a Watkins or Maddison.

So you'd probably say c. £20m - £25m initially for both, but then another c. £20m again for Olise from a better sell on clause.

Value, Gylfi £7m is comparable to Olise

With inflation, arguably worth more. But that is all due to the release clause - Olise would definitely be worth more otherwise.

[Snowflake Royal]

Even Sigurdsson some way short of Olise. Peaked at Spurs and Everton, compared with being a key player for Munich and France. A good benchmark for him would be how much Birmingham made from Bellingham, whereas Sigurdsson compares more to a Watkins or Maddison.

So you'd probably say c. £20m - £25m initially for both, but then another c. £20m again for Olise from a better sell on clause.

Value, Gylfi £7m is comparable to Olise

With inflation, arguably worth more. But that is all due to the release clause - Olise would definitely be worth more otherwise.

The conversation is just about what we made from a sale.

If we're talking about actual quality, Olise is 1 in 50 to 100 years, not 1 in 3 or 10.

[Scutterbucketz]

I think the main concern is that no one wanted to really wanted to hear that pcunts name ever again, so seeing it in an official document is immediate alarm bells.

If it is all part of the sale and was on the schedule, then it would have been great is Couhig had just been open about this in his statement. That he wasnt, when he consistently extols the virtues of transparency against the backdrop his understanding of our collective mistrust, isn’t great.

[PieEater]

A random theory, we know Couhig had liens on Bearwood so Dai couldn't sell it. Could this be him removing his lien - transfering the ownership to Dai in order to buy it back at the price stated?

[Brogue]

Right then I sent the document to a contact last week.

MR01 – Registration of a Charge
This is a formal document filed with Companies House to record that the company has created a charge (a form of security interest) over one or more of its assets. In UK company filings, an MR01 indicates that the company has given a lender a legal interest in assets as security for borrowing or other obligations.


Key Details from the Document
Company Name: RFC BEARWOOD LIMITED

Company Number: 08709240

Filing Date: 22 December 2025

Charge Creation Date: 16 December 2025

Charge Code: 0870 9240 0012

Entitled Party (Secured Creditor): RENHE SPORTS MANAGEMENT CO LIMITED
Asset Secured:
A freehold property located at Mole Road, Sindlesham, Wokingham (registered under Land Registry title BK471586).

Type of Charge:
Fixed charge — meaning the security is over a specific asset (the freehold property).
Negative pledge included — a promise by the company not to grant further security interests over the asset to others without the creditor’s consent.

Certification:
The form has been electronically filed and certified as a correct copy of the original instrument. The Registrar of Companies (Companies House) has recorded the charge under the Companies Act 2006, and it was communicated and authenticated electronically.

What This Means

RFC Bearwood Limited has taken on a secured obligation
The company has entered into some form of agreement (usually a loan or borrowing arrangement) where it has given Renhe Sports Management Co Limited a security interest over the property at Mole Road.

Companies House publishes filings like MR01 so that creditors and the public can see whether assets of a company are encumbered (i.e., subject to security). This protects other lenders and stakeholders by revealing existing claims on company assets.

Fixed charge vs floating charge:
A fixed charge attaches to specific property and restricts what the company can do with it (for example, selling or mortgaging it again without consent).

The negative pledge further restricts the company from granting additional security over the same asset without agreement from the secured creditor.

Why It Matters

If RFC Bearwood Limited were to default on whatever obligation is secured by this charge (e.g., repay a loan), Renhe Sports Management Co Limited may have the right to enforce that security — often by taking steps to sell or take ownership of the property to recover what it’s owed.
This kind of filing is common when a business borrows money using property or other significant assets as collateral. It protects the interests of the lender and ensures transparency for anyone examining the company’s financial commitments.

What this means for the company’s financial position

Asset is now encumbered
The Mole Road freehold property is no longer “clean” on the balance sheet.
It cannot be sold, refinanced, or used as security again without the consent of Renhe Sports Management Co Ltd
Any future lender will see this charge and treat the asset as already spoken for

Balance-sheet reality:

The property may still appear as an asset
But its real economic value to the company is reduced, because someone else has first claim on it Indicates borrowing or financial obligation

A charge almost always means one of the following:

A loan
A director-related funding arrangement
A related-party financing structure

Security granted as part of a commercial agreement

The amount owed is not disclosed in the MR01 — that’s important.

Risk implications (this is the key bit)

If the company struggles financially
Because this is a fixed charge:
Renhe Sports Management ranks ahead of unsecured creditors
If the company fails:
The property can be enforced upon
Sale proceeds go first to Renhe
Everyone else gets what’s left (if anything)
This is very strong protection for the lender.

Negative pledge = tighter restrictions
The negative pledge means:
No additional charges on that property
No “creative refinancing” without permission
Signals the lender wants full control of the asset
This usually appears when:
The lender is being cautious
Or the borrower has limited leverage elsewhere
Relationship risk: who is Renhe Sports Management?
This is a critical question.
You should check:
Are they related to the directors/shareholders?
Is this an arm’s-length commercial loan or internal funding?
If they are connected:
This may be director-backed funding
Common in cash-tight businesses
Not necessarily bad, but signals reliance on internal finance
If they are unrelated:
Then this is a commercial secured lender
Usually stricter terms
Suggests external financing was needed

What this filing suggests about company health (signals)

This filing does not automatically mean distress, but it does signal:

| Signal | Interpretation |
| ------------------------ | -------------------------------- |
| Fixed charge on property | Serious borrowing, not casual |
| Negative pledge | Lender wants control |
| Recent timing | Likely cash event or refinancing |
| No floating charge | Limited broader security package |


This is controlled but deliberate financing, not emergency insolvency behaviour — but it does narrow future options.

What you should check next (very actionable)

1. Check accounts filed after this date
Look for:
New long-term creditors
Notes on secured liabilities
Any mention of Renhe Sports Management

2. Search for connected-party disclosures
In the accounts:
“Related party transactions”
Director loans
Ultimate control statements

3. Check other charges
Is this:
The only charge? → cleaner position
One of many? → stacking risk

4. Watch future filings
Red flags to watch for:
Further charges
Late accounts
Change of directors shortly after
Administration or restructuring notices

Bottom line (plain English)
RFC Bearwood Ltd has pledged a key property as security to Renhe Sports Management.
This limits flexibility, protects the lender heavily, and signals meaningful borrowing — but not yet distress.
The real risk level depends entirely on:
How much is owed
Who Renhe is
Whether this is a one-off or part of a pattern

[Brogue]

Interesting that one of the red flags is late accounts….

[Orion1871]

I ain't reading all that.

I'm happy for you tho.

Or sorry that happened.

[Snowflake Royal]

I ain't reading all that.

I'm happy for you tho.

Or sorry that happened.

It's basically a long winded finance jargon version of

Couhig has given Dai security against the Training Ground for an amount of money, which is either cash, or in deferrement of an owed amount.

Which is what we'd all worked out anyway, and its not likely to be a cash loan given who it is.

[Hound]

Question is only really why there is a deferred payment which possibly suggests some sort of short term cash flow issue. Which might be very minor and basically little to worry about or maybe not

Did wonder a bit if they were expecting Mbengue money long before now - guess that could be a million or so?

[grey_squirrel]

Business consortium takes over the Club costing them Millions and now there's a cash flow problem! You seriously couldn't make this up.

There is no end to this.

Really wish we had been liquidated and started completely afresh.

[Sutekh]

So do we take it that the club have taken a loan or some other asset from Dai for some reason? If so, why the hell would they do that?!

Or is this just some legal weirdness leftover from the sale of the club?

[rabidbee]

It’s all speculation, isnt it? But we all know how much Dai likes to gamble, so I still think they’ve persuaded him not to take a scheduled payment now in return for the possibility of a bigger reward if we get promoted.

Couhig’s never made a secret of the fact that he doesn’t have bottomless pockets. Freeing up £3.5m now - if thats what he done - might be a really big step to pushing us up the table, and up the pyramid. The devil’s all in the detail, of course, and it all depends on the exact terms of the loan, but we’re unlikely to learn commercially sensitive details anyway. I learnt through the last few years not to get too stressed about stuff like this, and we’re clearly on financially sounder footings now than when we were owned by a fugitive bankrupt, so I’m staying fairly chill, frankly.

[Snowflake Royal]

So do we take it that the club have taken a loan or some other asset from Dai for some reason? If so, why the hell would they do that?!

Or is this just some legal weirdness leftover from the sale of the club?

No. We assume they've delayed a payment from the buy out.

[Sutekh]

So do we take it that the club have taken a loan or some other asset from Dai for some reason? If so, why the hell would they do that?!

Or is this just some legal weirdness leftover from the sale of the club?

No. We assume they've delayed a payment from the buy out.

So presume there’s a transfer window plan for which the “extra” money now is worth delaying this particular payment for, despite the subsequent later payment no doubt attracting interest on top.

Presume once this delayed payment is made that this charge will be removed?

Suppose if it somehow brought the club promotion it’d be worth it, but thought we’d got out of this sort of financial messing about!

[rfc8]

Further to the big picture and possible future.

The club own the stadium.
A different company, unrelated, own the hotel.
Yet another company, unrelated, own the car parks etc with plans for development.

So in the future the stadium likely hemmed in by hotel, apartments, etc, etc.

Car parking would be limited.

This has I think been known for ages but thought I'd set out so not lost sight of.

Anyone with future serious intentions of growing the club, expanding the stadium as once planned, would need to ponder this long and hard.

Please correct any of this if necessary, simply want a current picture.

[Mid Sussex Royal]

The long winded post above, probably designed to scare, looks like in the main a cut and paste job from a bank official's user guide on taking security.

There are also 3 charges outstanding from Rehne to Redwood according to Companies House for what reason we can only guess.....its all speculation

[RFCMod]

Our Academy and facilities would not look out of place at clubs like Brighton and Crystal Palace, and probably surpass some lower PL clubs like Bournemouth. The problem is they're massive white elephants for the club we are, and nobody has scaled them back to reflect a decade of stagnation.

It was always the big question mark whether new owners would keep them and build their entire strategy around climbing the pyramid again, or cut cloth to make us more sustainable in L1. Couhig seems to be suggesting he's going for the former. But with a top 6 playing staff budget and high overheads, it means there is not route to sustainability in L1.

Whereas if we were a Championship club, you could see the likes of Garcia and Savage generating the transfer revenue we need to make the model worthwhile. As it is in L1, they'd be another Azeez at best - useful money but barely touches the sides of operating losses. The crunch point with Savage will be this summer; either convince him that he can realise his ambitions here and extend his contract, or sell while he still has 12 months left. Plus he's not even an academy product anyway, so perhaps irrelevant to this debate (though Bearwood would have made a good impression and our reputation for developing youngsters would have helped too).

Just a bit of local input on Bournemouth.

The ground is of course small but plans are in place due to take place next Summer for development of the ground taking capacity up to over 20,000.
That investment will be nothing compared to the brand spanking new training ground and facilities that have been estimated at costing some £30 million-it is like a deluxe new housing estate and is a major step-up from using Canford School.

As for our category 1 who knows whether we got Olise because of that or just for being near his home city rather than Manchester.
Brentford have done very well with recruitment despite not having such a category as have Brighton and Palace has always done well bringing their own players through.

In Bournemouth's case they have had 2 rich owners in recent years fully prepared to invest and thereby keep the club in the Premier League.
They had a Russian with plenty of money and then a Yank who also owns other football clubs and is prepared to spend big whereas we had a Russian with no money, Thais interested more in property, a crooked Chinaman and now a Yank who talks well but we have to see if there is any substance.

If we had managed to get the right Russian and a very wealthy Yank, who knows, we might be like little Bournemouth now spending their 9th season out of the last 11 at the top level, looking likely to stay there and trading a number of players in the £40 -£70 million category and without category 1 for its youngsters.
Not that I am envious of course.

And with Bournemouth one thing they have done over the last 10 yrs is expanded their net in regards how far they're pushing their scouting network in youth football
At least 3/4 lads locally have been with Bournemouth since the age of 12 as their parents were impressed by their vision moving forwards

Similarly with Pompey but most parents dissuade their kids from that one due to the amount of jabs you have to have to mix with the locals