legalbeagle 3,734 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 they can put money in without needing a return twice. first return is when they get paid back second time is when the share price rises as a concequence. nobody is asking them for the unreasonable. they could have raised the 1.5m through their companies taking out sponsership or one or more could have bought the naming rights to the academy. there are many ways for investors to invest that are mutually benifical unfortunately they only seem concerned with a cash return.That would apply to anyone who wanted to help out the club, could equally put that question to King, who wants something for his money (such as it is) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,148 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 GW really needs to clarify three issues.The first is to confirm if we have used the 2.5 credit facility or not.The second is did he asked other investors to provide finance as to me 30% APR is a lot of interest?Thirdly we need clarification on what AE is paying as the wording in the statement can easily be misinterpreted and is poorly written. Is it no fee and no interest or is it just no interest? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muirheadbear 1,483 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Sorry but with some posters I do have to disagree lol. Don't mind different people having different views the world would be boring otherwise but it seems some people are only interested in the doom and gloom scenarios and only post in those circumstances. I would never describe it as doom and gloom. It's being very sensitive and wary. We ALL want the best for our club regardless of our opinions that much is clear. If some people think that the current regime do not have the club before their own personal interests then why not question them.. It's for this board to prove me and others wrong and if they do then I'll be the first to apologise and lend my support . You have my word on that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu43rigger 327 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 GW really needs to clarify three issues.The first is to confirm if we have used the 2.5 credit facility or not.The second is did he asked other investors to provide finance as to me 30% APR is a lot of interest?Thirdly we need clarification on what AE is paying as the wording in the statement can easily be misinterpreted and is poorly written. Is it no fee and no interest or is it just no interest?first- no it's not been usedsecond- the apr is not 30%, the fee is not based on interest so will be £150,000third- Easdales part of the facility is no interest and no fee Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJ 743 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 first- no it's not been usedsecond- the apr is not 30%, the fee is not based on interest so will be £150,000third- Easdales part of the facility is no interest and no feeIt is not quoted as interest but it is £150k for providing a £1m loan over 6 months. In Wonga terms, that is 30% APR. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gash07 26 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Not being a business guru, can someone more commercially experienced tell me how common is it that a company's own shareholders lends money to said company and secures it against assets. Really seems to the Lehman like yet another corporate gangbang.On another note, when Whyte was in office this place in general blamed everything on Murray and followed Whyte blindly into near oblivion. Then came Green who despite spouting endless obvious lies was supported to the hilt, with Whyte being the fall guy. Enter Wallace, the shit starts flying, again, and guess who goes under the bus? The saviour himself, Green. There is a pattern here which might be sheer coincidence but should be noted folks. The alarm bells start ringing in my ears the minute these guys get caught out spinning blatant lies. I get the feeling they think we are gullible simpletons.They might be right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 It's an absolute disgrace that money from the IPO was used to buy Albion Car Park and Edminston House, for around £4m and now we have secured a £1.5m loan with both. So if we default, we lose £4m of property.What next? Take a loan for £5m and secure it with Ibrox?The Metro bank loan facility might have had a higher than normal interest rate but Stockbridge told us it was an unsecured facility.If we default then the properties could be sold, but we would still only owe £1.5m, so any excess would come back to us, all things being equal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu43rigger 327 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 It is not quoted as interest but it is £150k for providing a £1m loan over 6 months. In Wonga terms, that is 30% APR.not true, by that logic what if we only use 150,000 of the credit facility then the apr is 200%, it's a payment fee based on the amount of the facility available therefore should only be quoted as 15% Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJ 743 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 If we default then the properties could be sold, but we would still only owe £1.5m, so any excess would come back to us, all things being equal. Not quite. We don't sell it, do we? So Mr Laxey could sell them to Mrs Laxey for £1.5m and he gets his money and Easdale gets his - with the two properties being out of our hands.I know that is a tad OTT in terms of scenario's but if we had silent investors who were in it to strip assets, this is a good way for them to start. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 first- no it's not been usedsecond- the apr is not 30%, the fee is not based on interest so will be £150,000third- Easdales part of the facility is no interest and no feeHow can you answer the first question?Has this been confirmed to you? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJ 743 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 not true, by that logic what if we only use 150,000 of the credit facility then the apr is 200%, it's a payment fee based on the amount of the facility available therefore should only be quoted as 15%Whether we use it or not, we are paying 15% of the loan amount and as that loan is over 6 months, it is undeniably equivalent to 30% APR Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Not quite. We don't sell it, do we? So Mr Laxey could sell them to Mrs Laxey for £1.5m and he gets his money and Easdale gets his - with the two properties being out of our hands.I know that is a tad OTT in terms of scenario's but if we had silent investors who were in it to strip assets, this is a good way for them to start.No, I dont think so as that would be....well illegal and extremely dodgy. And yes it is a tad OTT.If we default and cant afford to pay our creditors then Laxey and Easdales could force the sale of the properties to be repaid or essentially it could be administration 2 in which administrators would conduct the sale. Not Mr Laxey. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Whether we use it or not, we are paying 15% of the loan amount and as that loan is over 6 months, it is undeniably equivalent to 30% APRI can deny it. Its actually a little more than 30% APR on an equivalent basis Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Whether we use it or not, we are paying 15% of the loan amount and as that loan is over 6 months, it is undeniably equivalent to 30% APRTo be fair, from your description, its actually 30% Flat rate of interest(if it was interest) and not APR. APR would be higher than 30% Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,148 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 first- no it's not been usedsecond- the apr is not 30%, the fee is not based on interest so will be £150,000third- Easdales part of the facility is no interest and no feeWith respect Stu, your opinion is relevant but I'm sure you don't speak for GW. It's GW or JI via twitter who needs to confirm or clarify these questions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian 4,281 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 It is not quoted as interest but it is £150k for providing a £1m loan over 6 months. In Wonga terms, that is 30% APR.No it is not unless you write it in crayon.The fee is fixed for the deal. There is no mention of any other rates.So the interest is 15%. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangersfc77 170 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 What on earth was the lie Rangers statement clearly said working capital Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJ 743 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 No, I dont think so as that would be....well illegal and extremely dodgy. And yes it is a tad OTT.If we default and cant afford to pay our creditors then Laxey and Easdales could force the sale of the properties to be repaid or essentially it could be administration 2 in which administrators would conduct the sale. Not Mr Laxey. The creditor takes possession of the security and can sell it to the highest bidder - even if that means less than the due amount. My OTT scenario may be just that but Laxey & Easdale could take possession and sell for £1.5m to any bidder they wish. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The creditor takes possession of the security and can sell it to the highest bidder - even if that means less than the due amount. My OTT scenario may be just that but Laxey & Easdale could take possession and sell for £1.5m to any bidder they wish.It is OTT but point taken i guess. I was going down administration line where they would have a secured charge and therefore get first dibs at their money before any/all others but only to the value of their loan. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJ 743 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 To be fair, from your description, its actually 30% Flat rate of interest(if it was interest) and not APR. APR would be higher than 30% I stand corrected Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Some financial experts out tonight Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu43rigger 327 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 No it is not unless you write it in crayon.The fee is fixed for the deal. There is no mention of any other rates.So the interest is 15%.correct Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu43rigger 327 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 With respect Stu, your opinion is relevant but I'm sure you don't speak for GW. It's GW or JI via twitter who needs to confirm or clarify these questions.no probs mate, has anyone asked JI on twitter yet?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersFanBase 611 Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 Apparently dingwall didn't send that RST Statement around earlier by the way:Rangers Supporters @rangersfctrust 19mTo clear up any doubt it was me Gordon Stewart who emailed our members earlier. Some crazy people on the internet! :-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,148 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 no probs mate, has anyone asked JI on twitter yet??I'm not sure about JI my account is deactivated at the minute. Quote Link to post 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.