BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 They had more security when the debt was with the club. That's the bit I find hard to understand; they were getting their million a year plus interest, what was the problem, other than wanting to be out of football altogether. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 That's the bit I find hard to understand; they were getting their million a year plus interest, what was the problem, other than wanting to be out of football altogether. We couldn't afford the £1m this year. They knew that there was a big exposure there and wanted out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Ellis had a 5-year plan (or perhaps just an ambition) to develop the assets and then sell off the Club; perhaps he sold it (the plan) to Whyte. The offshore connection needs more investigating. I'm no property developer BH, but I can't see how there could be any sort of serious money to be made in developing the assets, especially when you consider that if Whyte (or one of his companies) has somehow taken on an £18m debt, there's no doubt interest to pay on it. Not only that, but if we win the EBT case he's comitted to investing a LOT more money into the club which would take the investment up to figures which would be almost impossible to scrape back from property development. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
khan 0 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 That's the bit I find hard to understand; they were getting their million a year plus interest, what was the problem, other than wanting to be out of football altogether. That if the tribunal went south the revenue would get all and the bank would get fuck all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 What's LBG's commercial incentive? Maybe they saw it as bad for their business to be constantly mentioned in the media as heavily connected to and even supposedly controlling our club? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 That if the tribunal went south the revenue would get all and the bank would get fuck all. The bank would have been a secured creditor and HMRC wouldn't, so not sure how you come to that conclusion. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Maybe they saw it as bad for their business to be constantly mentioned in the media as heavily connected to and even supposedly controlling our club? So to avoid that they'd allow the debt to be moved to where they had much less security? I doubt that. If the decision is being made at a fairly low level then the people involved are only concerned about getting the cash back as that's what they get measured on and are much less concerned about public image. The guys at the top may have been concerned about public image (but I doubt it worried them too much) but even if they were, is it worth putting £18m at risk? This line of thinking just doesn't make sense to me, but I guess all will be revealed when TRFCGL submit their accounts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
khan 0 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Secured against whom rather than what, Murray to pay with the banks own money ?, toxic doesn't even begin to describe this pile of shit the whole £1's worth of it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 If I was a bookie calculating the odds on the tax case we would be very heavy odds on favourites to get a result, HMRC for all their front and bravado allied to a good deal of "we are the Revenue what we say is final" are piss poor at these cases their record is abysmal even worse than has been claimed, it is about a 0.7% success rate.A lot of people and companies are realising that HMRC are subject to the same laws as everyone else, although they like to cultivate the myth that they are above it. My advice to anyone who has a case a good one against HMRC claims/assessments/bully boy tactics is to tell them go take a flying fuck and see them in court, as long as you are certain of your facts. Absolutely spot on Bud. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) So to avoid that they'd allow the debt to be moved to where they had much less security? I doubt that. If the decision is being made at a fairly low level then the people involved are only concerned about getting the cash back as that's what they get measured on and are much less concerned about public image. The guys at the top may have been concerned about public image (but I doubt it worried them too much) but even if they were, is it worth putting £18m at risk? This line of thinking just doesn't make sense to me, but I guess all will be revealed when TRFCGL submit their accounts. I might just be thinking slightly out of the box here BD and I might be completely wrong as well, but to me it seems entirely plausible that LBG could have seen the £18m debt as less important than their public image, especially when you consider that they have massive multi-billion international dealings. This is Lloyds we're talking about here, not some small time outfit. Edited December 30, 2011 by Zappa typo 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.