bennett Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 If he's pissed off he can probably take them through the courts for driving the value of shares down before they took over. Wasn't his man Easdale thinking o this also, maybe get the gardner in too for a bit o bear arse cheek. Call it the last battle o armageddon. rangers tv £5 a pop.[/quote] Fao hbqc..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Have the schools finished up? It's a busy wee forum these days! Not sure how to take this. Are you suggesting that there are a lot of kids on now. Or that there are a lot of people with no schools to hang around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Not sure how to take this. Are you suggesting that there are a lot of kids on now. Or that there are a lot of people with no schools to hang around. Teachers... ...or janitors 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 We are all school jannies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Celtic are the only ones suffering from Rangers' death and The Rangers' failure to achieve promotion. It's just sad that Sevconians feel the need to engage in this kind of whataboutery, and even sadder that they don't even read it properly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 One of the terms in the loan was no time-limit on when it must be paid, was announced on AIM as such. Your case law wouldn't apply in this case as was agreed between the two parties and stated in the contract.Wrong, it doesn't say both parties agreed that there would be no time limit on the repayment.What is says is this(There is no specified repayment period for the first tranche of the Facility)....not agreed but specified..That makes it like EG I posted.. .(.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. ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 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. That was on eof the best posts in the last 6000 pages - damning you with faint praise, i know, but still... It does highlight the desperate situation that Rangers must be in and also the fact that Mike probably can't be arsed doing anything about it. I think a SD lackey will look into it eventually and tell the reelranjurzmen to do one 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trackdaybob Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Loving all this paying it, no paying it But just think, paying it and it would all go away wouldn't it? Oh wait a minute.......? nae a bean tae rub together 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Celtic are the only ones suffering from Rangers' death and The Rangers' failure to achieve promotion. It's just sad that Sevconians feel the need to engage in this kind of whataboutery, and even sadder that they don't even read it properly. We only surfer when we don't qualify for the champions league 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podlie Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Wrong, it doesn't say both parties agreed that there would be no time limit on the repayment. What is says is this(There is no specified repayment period for the first tranche of the Facility)....not agreed but specified..That makes it like EG I posted.. .(.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. ) It also further states in their contract "If the entire sum drawn down is repaid, the Facility will be deemed to be terminated"................................. If not when. If both parties hadn't agreed on no specified repayment period then why was the phrase included in their contract given the second tranche had a 5 year period repayment time limit? It is nothing like the case law you are presenting at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Nice, but what severe penalties do Rangers face? Hired Goons 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
entropy Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 And a succession of shameless lying glibs running your skidmark of a club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattBairn Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) If the premier teams are so fucked without Sevco how come the finances and debt for all teams outwith Celtic (I'm genuinely not sure about Celtic either way) has improved since Rangers demise? As far as I'm aware the debt of all the clubs has reduced dramatically. Edited June 4, 2015 by MattBairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 If the premier teams are so fucked without Sevco how come the finances and debt for all teams outwith Celtic (I'm genuinely not sure about Celtic either way) has improved since Rangers demise? As far as I'm aware the debt of all the clubs has reduced dramatically. It was only a few months ago that Roy MacGregor claimed that.... "And MacGregor reckons the financial situation in the Scottish game is becoming so bad that Premiership clubs could be forced to turn part-time within three years" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Don't vote for Ashley, we haven't got £5M to pay him with But in the meantime, he can rifle the club via his holding the merchandising & trademarks. Enjoy the ride. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Mon the EGM I hope the shareholders pass the resolution to pay off Ashley, not that Ashley needs or wants the money but it will most definitely put a huge dent in King's so called kids inheritance. Just Ashley squeezing Kings balls that little bit tighter after Ashley had sewn up all the clubs assets and IP before King took over so that King had nothing of value at the club to flog off or mortgage to fund his demented takeover behind the fans backs after he deliberately got RIFC de-listed. "Not the clubs best use of resources" to pay back Ashley, WTF ??? , that says it all that he doesn't have the money he promised to get rid of Ashley he promised the fans. Negotiating a better deal for the club ?, another stall tactic not to put a penny in. I'll bet King is waiting till after the EGM before he does anything further. If RIFC have to pay back Ashley then expect the clubs company to take this to some sort of legal mechanism to stall paying Ashley back costing the club money in legal fees and still have to pay Ashley so King can avoid coughing up. Should Ashley be successful and the pay day loans from King & Co paid back through the ST's, The Rangers are looking at a £20 million shortfall next season and Ashley knows it.Tedi is advocating a decreased players wage budget next season, good luck with that watching an even worse The Rangers team fail next season because the budget was cut is what all the bears want. No marquee signings and the ST's will dwindle after all they are the Rangers n aw rat and mediocrity isn't for ra peeps. £20 million shortfall and the bears will expect King to increase the budget with the warchest he promised to build a squad to win the Premiership in the Championship. Next season could be the best yet for the clown club est 2012. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Maybe Dave will pull the same stunt as Lord Charles and draught in Sir Walter to boost Season Ticket sales 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podlie Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Mon the EGM I hope the shareholders pass the resolution to pay off Ashley, not that Ashley needs or wants the money but it will most definitely put a huge dent in King's so called kids inheritance. Just Ashley squeezing Kings balls that little bit tighter after Ashley had sewn up all the clubs assets and IP before King took over so that King had nothing of value at the club to flog off or mortgage to fund his demented takeover behind the fans backs after he deliberately got RIFC de-listed. "Not the clubs best use of resources" to pay back Ashley, WTF ??? , that says it all that he doesn't have the money he promised to get rid of Ashley he promised the fans. Negotiating a better deal for the club ?, another stall tactic not to put a penny in. I'll bet King is waiting till after the EGM before he does anything further. If RIFC have to pay back Ashley then expect the clubs company to take this to some sort of legal mechanism to stall paying Ashley back costing the club money in legal fees and still have to pay Ashley so King can avoid coughing up. Should Ashley be successful and the pay day loans from King & Co paid back through the ST's, The Rangers are looking at a £20 million shortfall next season and Ashley knows it.Tedi is advocating a decreased players wage budget next season, good luck with that watching an even worse The Rangers team fail next season because the budget was cut is what all the bears want. No marquee signings and the ST's will dwindle after all they are the Rangers n aw rat and mediocrity isn't for ra peeps. £20 million shortfall and the bears will expect King to increase the budget with the warchest he promised to build a squad to win the Premiership in the Championship. Next season could be the best yet for the clown club est 2012. He's doing great as it is IMHO, more loans, desisted from AIM and a meeting where he's no paying.....................be interesting once the honeymoon wears off, will they fall for words for ST wonga again? Probably though can't see them shifting more than 20k. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Mon the EGM I hope the shareholders pass the resolution to pay off Ashley, not that Ashley needs or wants the money but it will most definitely put a huge dent in King's so called kids inheritance. Just Ashley squeezing Kings balls that little bit tighter after Ashley had sewn up all the clubs assets and IP before King took over so that King had nothing of value at the club to flog off or mortgage to fund his demented takeover behind the fans backs after he deliberately got RIFC de-listed. "Not the clubs best use of resources" to pay back Ashley, WTF ??? , that says it all that he doesn't have the money he promised to get rid of Ashley he promised the fans. Negotiating a better deal for the club ?, another stall tactic not to put a penny in. I'll bet King is waiting till after the EGM before he does anything further. If RIFC have to pay back Ashley then expect the clubs company to take this to some sort of legal mechanism to stall paying Ashley back costing the club money in legal fees and still have to pay Ashley so King can avoid coughing up. Should Ashley be successful and the pay day loans from King & Co paid back through the ST's, The Rangers are looking at a £20 million shortfall next season and Ashley knows it.Tedi is advocating a decreased players wage budget next season, good luck with that watching an even worse The Rangers team fail next season because the budget was cut is what all the bears want. No marquee signings and the ST's will dwindle after all they are the Rangers n aw rat and mediocrity isn't for ra peeps. £20 million shortfall and the bears will expect King to increase the budget with the warchest he promised to build a squad to win the Premiership in the Championship. Next season could be the best yet for the clown club est 2012. Lol Edited June 4, 2015 by bennett -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderlei Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 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. You seem more obssed than the QC these days...do you even give a good f**k about Celticfootballclub? 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.