• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

March to June 2020 - NEWCASTLE UTD fc

Status
Not open for further replies.
kildaremackem said:
but he is the one reducing his liquidity by giving it to her...in exchange fir a charge..so he is swopping a liquid thing (cash) for an illiquid thung (either a promise to pay or the proceeds if a court case) very illiquid things..
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. With a vendor loan (and it is described as such in the charge) the shares to be acquired can be the subject of the loan, with the loan being repaid by the payment of the price over the loan term. Presumably done in the absence of other assets as security for the instalments (cf Short's charges over Sunderland and SAFC after the Madrox takeover).
 

I wonder where this age line is where all of a sudden you become much smarter than ‘the young’?

There are just as many elderly people who are as thick as fuck than there is young. I’m not instantly dismissive of someone’s intelligence just because I have a few years on them like you see in the behaviour of some on here.

I know, it’s not hard because it’s me, etc.
 
Last edited:
Grumpy Old Man said:
Not necessarily. With a vendor loan (and it is described as such in the charge) the shares to be acquired can be the subject of the loan, with the loan being repaid by the payment of the price over the loan term. Presumably done in the absence of other assets as security for the instalments (cf Short's charges over Sunderland and SAFC after the Madrox takeover).
Click to expand...
thank you-your explanations ae always useful..but...are you saying..the £150m can be repaid over multip[le years but she gets the shares now?
so she has bought her bit on the never never?
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
I got it wrong. I got the percentages mixed up. end of story. It's looking more and more that there's a concerted effort going on amongst a small group of poster to denigrate me, belittle me and force me to stop posting. Well, fuck off the lot of you, it's not going to work.
Click to expand...

Mate most of them are mags who shouldn’t be on here - don’t even sweat it for a single second
 
kildaremackem said:
but he is the one reducing his liquidity by giving it to her...in exchange fir a charge..so he is swopping a liquid thing (cash) for an illiquid thung (either a promise to pay or the proceeds if a court case) very illiquid things..
Click to expand...
No he will get most of the proceeds of the sale from day 1.
 
kildaremackem said:
thank you-your explanations ae always useful..but...are you saying..the £150m can be repaid over multip[le years but she gets the shares now?
so she has bought her bit on the never never?
Click to expand...

The amount of the loan isn't mentioned. If it's just covering her percentage, it will be more like £30m. It doesn't have to be the full amount of the Barclays claim.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
The amount of the loan isn't mentioned. If it's just covering her percentage, it will be more like £30m. It doesn't have to be the full amount of the Barclays claim.
Click to expand...
hm. are you saying he might have loaned the shares to her..rather than actual cash?
and then, she either pays him the cash or he gets it from any pote tial settlement with barclays?
 
kildaremackem said:
hm. are you saying he might have loaned the shares to her..rather than actual cash?
and then, she either pays him the cash or he gets it from any pote tial settlement with barclays?
Click to expand...

Precisely. Vendor loans can take both forms. They're usually used to fund purchases of goods or property, but, at one level, it's arguable that the shares in Newcastle United Ltd are just property (albeit intangible) of St James Holdings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top