Search results

Knew you wanted the last word Part of me says let him. Part of me says prove your point.............................. Cant be arsed with the latter because you know what. I saw the best potential in a player I have seen in a long time with Yves Bissouma, so pref to talk about him than...

LOL - Let it go he says as long as you get the last word on the matter.. You were right I had helped myself to a small sherry last night but sober now so can't be bothered with it any more. Football starts soon so all irrelevant

Ain't got time to answer it all.....I'm off to the match shortly The long and the short of it all is They loaned £50K or so to the club many years ago from their own personal monies. Up until the Court ruling they could have taken that money back at anytime by calling in that loan. Now they...

That I agree 100% Its the loss of the initial loan by the lender that I still go back to. Need to go to bed now. Gotta go to game tomorrow. Desperate to see Bissoma in his cameo 20 mins

And that may even be the stumbling block over the potential sale of Newcastle in the last 12 months. Who knows ?

That's only assuming that the lender never intended to ''call in'' the loan. You are probably correct that they never intended to call the loan in but most DL accounts are called in. In football it is not usual to do so. Roman Abramovitch will almost certainly not call his loans in at Chelsea...

The initial loan is lost to them though now

Yes I agree on that part of the transaction But simple fact is. The initial Loan lets say £50m would have to have been transferred from lets say a personal account to QPR bank account. They had that money in their bank. Now they don't.. Its lost because that money is no longer theirs. If they...

It would contravene ML Regulations otherwise

They would need to transfer physically, the funds from a personal or a separate company bank account to make the loan a legitimate loan. That is a definite ''Given'' . I don't even need to look up any books for that one.

You can disagree ALL YOU LIKE. For legal purposes, and for tax purposes they are different Entities. You move monies whether it be in salary or dividend or Capital Distributions Every Government around the world will tax it every time it is moved from one Entity to another. Doesn't even matter...

Directors/Owners are a separate Entity to the company/club.. You or many other may see them as the same Entity but they are most definitely NOT The owners loaned the club however many million it was. They were forced to convert the loans to Equity which is worth zero to them quite literally...

He would still have been within his rights to call in the loans at anytime in the future. In hindsight your post made me think. This could potentially aid QPR. Without outstanding loans in the future accounts, it makes it a more viable proposition to investors further down the line but in...

I agree your synopsis, although I think there is a ''pluspoint'' to it. The ''incidental loan'' injected by the owners into QPR was lost to them, in that it looks like it was ruled that it had to be ''converted to equity''. And that sets a ''case law'' precedent, albeit not a ''binding case...

I agree your synopsis, although I think there is a ''pluspoint'' to it. The ''incidental loan'' injected by the owners into QPR was lost to them, in that it looks like it was ruled that it had to be ''converted to equity''. And that sets a ''case law'' precedent, albeit not a ''binding case...

The cost to the owners in real terms is actually more than the original fine. Who it goes to is irrellevant

QPRs Barristers have been telling them from the beginning they didn't have a legal leg to stand on. They just wanted to drag it out until they had got operating costs down to a level where they could afford to pay the fine