WeeDiamond90 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) A loan shark who is charging 0%? Fat Mike does not get a penny extra for this loan being in place. Aye cos paying the loan off will encourage him to do the same? He may be charging 0% but he does have security over everything except Ibrox, meaning if he want his money and you can't/ wont pay then he gets to keep them If you think he is making not one penny from this loan deal then you are clearly delusional Well surely you would have a better chance than not paying him, and why would he want to renegotiate it anyway? Edited June 4, 2015 by WeeDiamond90 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 A loan shark who is charging 0%? Fat Mike does not get a penny extra for this loan being in place. Aye cos paying the loan off will encourage him to do the same? Seems legit 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 I'm not an expert on financial matters but I'd be very surprised if you can avoid paying back a loan just by repeatedly claiming it has no end date. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Does not really work when you ignore the other part though does it Stedi, Tedi! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 So SD is getting no return for their £5m? So SD is getting no return for their £5m? So SD is getting no return for their £5m? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Last time I watched Judge Judy I'm sure they never got of repaying loans by saying there was no date in the contract. Wid 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeDiamond90 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 They will remain under security until he either does a deal that is acceptable to Rangers and they pay him back or he find a legal argument that Rangers have defaulted on the loan. Go on then what is he making out of it? Why would fat mike who does not not give a 'flying f**k' (your words) negotiate once he has his money back? Why should he accept a deal that is acceptable to Rangers? Have you any proof he isn't making money out of it? You don't become a Billionaire by simply lending folk money free of charge 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 So SD is getting no return for their £5m? Do you know what happens when a floating or fixed security is taken on a going concern and that business then no longer becomes a going concern? Rangers Retail will be the key to getting this loan repaid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 They will remain under security until he either does a deal that is acceptable to Rangers and they pay him back or he find a legal argument that Rangers have defaulted on the loan. Go on then what is he making out of it? Why would fat mike who does not not give a 'flying f**k' (your words) negotiate once he has his money back? Carry on Tedi, i think this is definitely the best way to approach this. I can't think of *any* way in which this could backfire or go wrong for the berzzz. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Get back to me when something happens then. Will do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Why should Rangers accept a request to pay off a loan that they do not have to? Do you have any proof he is making money out of it? how many millions did he lose in his Barclays deal again? Who says they don't have to pay it back? That's EBT's you're thinking of Edited June 4, 2015 by Insaintee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeDiamond90 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Why should Rangers accept a request to pay off a loan that they do not have to? Do you have any proof he is making money out of it? how many millions did he lose in his Barclays deal again? Why do they not need to pay it off? I don't need proof that he is making money out of it, he wouldn't invest in Rangers if he wasn't going to make money out of it, billionaires don't make a habit of throwing money down a hole in the ground (hence they are billionaires) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podlie Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 I'm not an expert on financial matters but I'd be very surprised if you can avoid paying back a loan just by repeatedly claiming it has no end date. Was no time limit set for payback on it. Wonder if there is still an obligation to purchase stock higher than its resale value still in place. Any boycott of SD going to be expensive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Why should Rangers accept a request to pay off a loan that they do not have to? Under more normal circumstances the most obvious reason to pay off a loan that you don’t have to would be to stop paying interest on it. In this case the credit isn’t costing interest directly but Rangers are foregoing a sizable chunk of potential retail revenue instead. Quite how much this is costing Rangers annually is a question you need to ask Dave King but chances are that it’s costing Rangers more than it’s benefiting Sports Direct who have accumulated so much bad will through King and the Daily Record’s efforts that they won’t be shifting anywhere near as much RFC branded tat as they’d otherwise anticipate. In strategic terms money is being left on the table here. Nonetheless it would seem reasonable to assume that if Rangers could get access to a source of credit that would cost less to service than the expected profit from Rangers Retail then they would. The fact that, even in an environment of near zero base rates, they haven’t is indicative that not even Dave King will lend them the money. If it comes to a point where they’re foregoing retail income and the shirt sponsorship money and still can’t find a better deal that would suggest they were absolutely desperate. Looked at from the other side Sports Direct aren’t getting as much out of this deal as they’d have hoped and could probably find a better use for that capital. What’s more the very fact that Rangers can’t find a better finance deal than this one is a strong signal that Sports Direct are running a significant credit risk in return for this disappointing return. The idea that the sports direct deal will be the instrument of new Rangers doom is overbaked doom mongering/wishfull thinking. It is a symptom as opposed to a cause of their malaise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Stop talking sense you.......it takes all the fun out of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 What penalties? where are they detailed? what date for repayment was attached to the loan? Tedi do yourself a favour... ..Loans with No Repayment Terms Can Equal Gift? Summary It is common for loans particularly between family and friends to contain no term as to repayment. This may lead people to believe that the money only becomes payable when the other party demands its return. That is incorrect. A loan of money which contains no agreed repayment term becomes continuously recoverable at all times. Therefore any cause of action arises the instant the money is advanced. This has implications when determining: if the collection of a debt is statute barred; whether a company is insolvent; and the calculation of pre-judgment statutory interest. Statute Barred In VL Finance Pty Ltd v Legudi [2003] VSC 57 loans owed by directors were created by book entries. No formal agreements existed. The only documentary evidence of the loans were in the companys financial statements. The loans were created in 1992. The Plaintiff sought to sue in respect of them in 2000. The Defendants claimed that the debts were statute barred. Nettle J found that in the absence of any stipulation as to the date of payment a debt will become recoverable the instant the money is advanced. The Plaintiff argued that the directors did not have the money which would have been needed to repay the loans and therefore the parties must have intended that the directors be given time to pay if ever called upon to do so. Therefore, such a term should be implied into the loan agreement. Nettle J held that to infer such a term into the loan agreement there must be express words or necessary implication to establish contrary intention. It is not enough to imply a term merely because it may be reasonable. The usual contract rule applies, that is, a term may not be implied unless necessary to give business efficacy to the contract. Otherwise, in the absence of any stipulation as to the date of payment, a debt becomes due and payable instantly upon the money being advanced. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Pretty sure there can be severe penalties for not paying up someone like Mike Ashley when he decides he wants paid. Awa and dinna talk pish, severe penalties lol.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adundeemonkey Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 To be fair to fans of the New Rangers, their view of loans and need to pay them back is based on the use of EBTs by the Old Rangers. To them it is perfectly reasonable to loan money to people with no expectation to ever get the loan back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Also King certainly won't pay £5M to Ashley. Why would a 14% shareholder pay the clubs debt to Ashley? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Why would a 14% shareholder pay the clubs debt to Ashley? Why would a 14% shareholder promise to put in £30m of his own money? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.