Adam Blackmore is correct... We've always taken out a loan around this time of year and put the club's assets up as security. Indeed, the opening paragraph in my opening post highlighted that this annual practice was business as usual.
The main thrust of my OP was to highlight the differences between this year and previous years, namely that we appear to have switched from using a bank to 'financial intermediaries' and also that we appear to have put up more assets than usual, i.e. the intellectual property.
I also then subsequently highlighted another difference to previous years, in that the agreement signed with MSD is a "debenture" rather than a "deed". It's never been called a debenture before. I've no idea if that is just semantics or not, but all I'm doing is highlighting what I perceive to be differences.
I still think this is a reasonable series of questions to ponder upon:
- why did we switch lender types (from a bank to an intermediary organisation)?
- why did we seemingly have to put up more security than usual this time?
- is the use of the "debenture," terminology significant when this hasn't been the case previously?
I'm sure there's a completely routine and innocuous answer to all 3 of these questions but I still think it's valid to observe any differences to previous years and ponder on why they've chosen to do things differently this year.
Of course, it could be as simple as it being a more cost effective approach, but who knows?