Biscuit mane Sjm has not got any money !!,...he needs the second instalment .the ground has been remortgaged and loans taken out against the club .....more than just a rumour ... would the club like to deny this ???????
Stop embarrassing yourself.
by One8Seven1 » 14 Oct 2013 19:57
Biscuit mane Sjm has not got any money !!,...he needs the second instalment .the ground has been remortgaged and loans taken out against the club .....more than just a rumour ... would the club like to deny this ???????
by Man Friday » 14 Oct 2013 20:16
by Platypuss » 14 Oct 2013 20:30
This post was made by Man Friday who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
by Ian Royal » 14 Oct 2013 21:04
by Cypry » 14 Oct 2013 22:05
by Ian Royal » 14 Oct 2013 23:24
Cypry Wouldn't surprise me if there have been some loans secured against club assets...
What people need to remember is that it's not just a matter of TSI buying SJM out for £25M. There's also the matter of some £28M that the club owed SJM in directors loans (which I believe I read somewhere in a dissection of last years accounts have been paid back).
That money was owed by the club, and it's not unreasonable that the club would look to secure funds against it's assets to pay off that debt. In the current economic climate I guess it's highly unlikely that the club could secure the full amount of those loans against assets, in which case TSI will most likely have had to underwrite some of that debt themselves, possibly with a loan.
It might just be that the delay is a restructuring of the deal on this basis - it really doesn't surprise me that TSI might struggle to come up with the full £50+ M required to buy out SJM and clear his loans.
by RoyalBlue » 15 Oct 2013 08:26
Ian RoyalCypry Wouldn't surprise me if there have been some loans secured against club assets...
What people need to remember is that it's not just a matter of TSI buying SJM out for £25M. There's also the matter of some £28M that the club owed SJM in directors loans (which I believe I read somewhere in a dissection of last years accounts have been paid back).
That money was owed by the club, and it's not unreasonable that the club would look to secure funds against it's assets to pay off that debt. In the current economic climate I guess it's highly unlikely that the club could secure the full amount of those loans against assets, in which case TSI will most likely have had to underwrite some of that debt themselves, possibly with a loan.
It might just be that the delay is a restructuring of the deal on this basis - it really doesn't surprise me that TSI might struggle to come up with the full £50+ M required to buy out SJM and clear his loans.
Hello Cypry, you seem to know what you're talking about. Can you explain how SJM could only have put £7m into the club if he's owed £28m in Director loans?
by Biscuit mane » 15 Oct 2013 09:10
by The Rouge » 15 Oct 2013 09:23
by Silver Fox » 15 Oct 2013 10:03
melonheadMouldyRoyal I haven't quite seen what TSI have done to the club that is so bad for everyone to h8 them so much.
Currently the worst thing they've done is not chucked loads of money at new players (which would saddle the club with debt) and ran it largely within its means. What's the fuss?
refused to comment on random speculation.
by ZacNaloen » 15 Oct 2013 10:28
The Rouge This is such a bad situation. If Dirkers hadn't been 'called out' then he could spend all of his time trawling through every possible source and then I could just read what he writes and take it with a kennel of salt. As it is, I am left here having to consider spending my own time* to get to the bottom of this.
* I won't bother
URZ
by Uke » 15 Oct 2013 12:25
The Rouge This is such a bad situation. If Dirkers hadn't been 'called out' then he could spend all of his time trawling through every possible source and then I could just read what he writes and take it with a kennel of salt. As it is, I am left here having to consider spending my own time* to get to the bottom of this.
* I won't bother
URZ
by Harpers So Solid Crew » 15 Oct 2013 12:26
by Uke » 15 Oct 2013 12:29
by Yellowcoat » 15 Oct 2013 12:37
Biscuit mane Has loans been taken out to cover the first take over .....or needed for the second installment ???????
by MouldyRoyal » 15 Oct 2013 13:49
by Harpers So Solid Crew » 15 Oct 2013 15:32
YellowcoatBiscuit mane Has loans been taken out to cover the first take over .....or needed for the second installment ???????
You keep telling us this! Either provide some proof or stop posting this nonsense.
by Bandini » 15 Oct 2013 16:47
Silver FoxmelonheadMouldyRoyal I haven't quite seen what TSI have done to the club that is so bad for everyone to h8 them so much.
Currently the worst thing they've done is not chucked loads of money at new players (which would saddle the club with debt) and ran it largely within its means. What's the fuss?
refused to comment on random speculation.
Also, I'm still waiting for my moon on a stick
by Ian Royal » 15 Oct 2013 17:37
RoyalBlueIan RoyalCypry Wouldn't surprise me if there have been some loans secured against club assets...
What people need to remember is that it's not just a matter of TSI buying SJM out for £25M. There's also the matter of some £28M that the club owed SJM in directors loans (which I believe I read somewhere in a dissection of last years accounts have been paid back).
That money was owed by the club, and it's not unreasonable that the club would look to secure funds against it's assets to pay off that debt. In the current economic climate I guess it's highly unlikely that the club could secure the full amount of those loans against assets, in which case TSI will most likely have had to underwrite some of that debt themselves, possibly with a loan.
It might just be that the delay is a restructuring of the deal on this basis - it really doesn't surprise me that TSI might struggle to come up with the full £50+ M required to buy out SJM and clear his loans.
Hello Cypry, you seem to know what you're talking about. Can you explain how SJM could only have put £7m into the club if he's owed £28m in Director loans?
Difference is that, to most people, 'put in' would suggest that the money had been given/donated without any requirement to pay. A loan is exactly that (there is a requirement to repay) and I believe that Cypry stated that the £28M has been repaid. Had the club not repaid these to Madejski then it would be more accurate to say that he had lost £28M that he had lent the club, rather than suggest that he had willingly put that money in as a donation without any hope/expectation that it would be paid back.
by loyalroyaldaz » 15 Oct 2013 19:55
Users browsing this forum: Armadillo Roadkill, Snowflake Royal and 430 guests