TheTinMan99 0 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Maybe so, but who can say that they knew the details and whether Ahmad's attempt to freeze money was a rather new attempt of him to get his money? Just saying. At the end of the day we got rid of the loan deal and that's that. King looks to the future and we would do well not to highlight stuff of the past time and again. Which is not to say that we should forget it. The past? It was about 3 weeks ago ffs. I'll forget about it when the people that brokered this ridiculous loan are long gone, if that's ok with you. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 You think this review will point out the board's weakness when it came to an inflated interest loan? I think it'll say what Wallace found and why a loan was decided on 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 hes also said his preferred option is to take shares costing the club nothing. or failing that he will reinvest the 45k. its essentially interest free. That's very good as well. One thing that has never been clear to me however, I may have missed discussion on it, is if it is a facility fee, then like an overdraft fee, you have to pay it whether or not you actually draw down the money. In that case the if you don't draw down anything, the equivalent rate of interest becomes infinitesimal, all the more reason for him to reinvest it and not take money for nothing as Laxey may have done if their money was not drawn down. A lot depends on whether or not the money was needed as a backstop in case Ahmad got to ring fence the £500k (in which case tactically it was a good if expensive manoeuvre) or worse still won his case, or whether it was needed for working capital pro tem the ST money or both. Another question is who has paid Laxey's legal fees in making the new agreement and relinquishing the security? For that matter who has paid Mr Letham's legal fees? It might be that he has paid his own fees; but I would expect that the Club would have to pay Laxey's solicitor's fees at the very least. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 You may well be onto something there, as that would certainly explain why the £2.5m facility just mysteriously up and vanished leaving the Club in a tough spot when the funds started drying up. The other thought that had crossed my mind is that the £2.5m facility exited stage left along with Richard Hughes. he may well have been initially favorite to get weighed in again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTinMan99 0 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Any coincidence that news of this comes on the day that King showed them their arses? I suspect not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 That's very good as well. One thing that has never been clear to me however, I may have missed discussion on it, is if it is a facility fee, then like an overdraft fee, you have to pay it whether or not you actually draw down the money. In that case the if you don't draw down anything, the equivalent rate of interest becomes infinitesimal, all the more reason for him to reinvest it and not take money for nothing as Laxey may have done if their money was not drawn down. A lot depends on whether or not the money was needed as a backstop in case Ahmad got to ring fence the £500k (in which case tactically it was a good if expensive manoeuvre) or worse still won his case, or whether it was needed for working capital pro tem the ST money or both. Another question is who has paid Laxey's legal fees in making the new agreement and relinquishing the security? For that matter who has paid Mr Letham's legal fees. It might be that he has paid his own fees; but I would expect that the Club would have to pay Laxey's solicitor's fees at the very least. mr letham said he would only do it if there was no cost to rangers but that may well have proved impractical. as for the fee/interest part it looks to be a fee payable no matter what. that may be because it was definitely needed or just to make sure it was all paid out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Another question is who has paid Laxey's legal fees in making the new agreement and relinquishing the security? For that matter who has paid Mr Letham's legal fees. It might be that he has paid his own fees; but I would expect that the Club would have to pay Laxey's solicitor's fees at the very least. The answer to that might be hidden in the fact that the fee in Mr. Letham's original offer has reduced from £75k to £45k. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Maybe so, but who can say that they knew the details and whether Ahmad's attempt to freeze money was a rather new attempt of him to get his money? Just saying. At the end of the day we got rid of the loan deal and that's that. King looks to the future and we would do well not to highlight stuff of the past time and again. Which is not to say that we should forget it. The case has now been delayed until February next year, yet the loan is still required. Suggests the £1.5million cash is needed for regular working capital purposes (like the cub actually said) rather than worries about Imran Ahmad's chances of getting £500K frozen. What was the extra million for? Indeed the working capital requirements contradicts what the CEO said earlier in the year which, along with the poor Laxey loan deal, is completely worthy of debate given the same person and board want us to trust their 120 day review. It quite frankly amazes me that even in the most clear issues folk refuse to alter their viewpoint on some stuff. No-one is saying you suddenly need to carry the lad Houston on your shoulder to the next game but just that criticism of the club is occasionally wholly correct and concerning. We seen the same phenomenon under Whyte and Green - it's really bizarre! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I think it'll say what Wallace found and why a loan was decided on The accounts may say that. The review will not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 The past? It was about 3 weeks ago ffs. I'll forget about it when the people that brokered this ridiculous loan are long gone, if that's ok with you. Was not solely referring to the loan deal here. But it is good to know that some knew and know exactly why it was needed in the first place. 0 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.