| The future of SCFC 09:32 - Nov 11 with 42918 views | _ |
Can we start a thread to get some structure at the meeting night before West Ham. I'm not going to the game and won't be in the country that weekend and I've also heard the Q&A session can be a bit ad hoc let's say. Dav and ARQS have asked some serious questions.
Do you think it's possible for the ones going to go in ready with structured questions?
I wouldn't necessarily want these questions on a public forum but I'm sure anyone that wants something answered can get their questions to the Trust people or the ones attending that night.
That would only take just a little organising and a panel could decide the best say 10 questions to take to Leigh and Huw. I'm sure someone at the event could also set up a video link or at least record it? [Post edited 13 Dec 2014 15:26]
|  |
| |  |
| The future of SCFC on 09:36 - Dec 15 with 1559 views | jackonicko |
Sorry, Shaky, but Lisa is right here. She has given you an example from the very company (SCFC2002) in question.
The facts of the MM loan are not quite as you stated. If memory serves, it was actually a cash injection to give the club working capital to bring in Borini - as a final push for the Premier League. He lent the money to the club, but secured that loan against club assets by way of a fixed charge. Therefore, the repayment of his loan took priority over other creditors to the club, as it was secured.
Therefore that loan was from a shareholder, but was the opposite of being subordinated. |  | | |
| The future of SCFC on 09:57 - Dec 15 with 1528 views | Uxbridge |
| The future of SCFC on 23:05 - Dec 14 by londonlisa2001 |
Chris, I have no idea what happened. I assume that Leigh was offered the chance to invest privately (or requested the chance) and took it up to put in £50k or whatever it was of his own money and the other shareholders were prepared to allow it to happen.
In terms of why Richard was against it, I assume that as a genuinely honourable man who was utterly selfless in his desire to establish and promote the whole notion of supporter ownership and as a tireless leader of the push for the Trust to have as big a say as possible in our club for ever more, he found the notion that someone was prepared to use their position as Trust representative to ultimately further their personal situation to be something that he found disingenuous. I also think that once Leigh became a shareholder in his own right, he (and the other Trust leadership) did not believe that the interests of the Trust would be properly served by Leigh continuing to represent the Trust on the board as it was such an obvious conflict of interest.
Richard believed I think in the 'rightness' of the trust and public fan ownership of the club and I suspect was disappointed that those who he thought had the same view, ultimately did not.
I would think though that Phil and others would know far more about the detail of what happened than I do - this is simply my perception and it may be wrong. |
Jacko won't be happy with you stealing his schtick, but aye, in a nutshell. Still, big risk when we're near the top of the 3rd tier ... |  |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 10:42 - Dec 15 with 1499 views | whiterock |
| The future of SCFC on 21:51 - Dec 14 by dobjack2 |
Thanks Lisa.
I haven't read any business case for buying the stadium.
i cannot believe that the club borrowing money to buy the stadium would be a requirement for someone to buy some shares in the club. Unless this is a takeover not simply buying shares |
£2m a year for 10 years, £1m a year for 20 years? Who knows? |  | | |
| The future of SCFC on 11:30 - Dec 15 with 1453 views | Shaky |
| The future of SCFC on 09:36 - Dec 15 by jackonicko |
Sorry, Shaky, but Lisa is right here. She has given you an example from the very company (SCFC2002) in question.
The facts of the MM loan are not quite as you stated. If memory serves, it was actually a cash injection to give the club working capital to bring in Borini - as a final push for the Premier League. He lent the money to the club, but secured that loan against club assets by way of a fixed charge. Therefore, the repayment of his loan took priority over other creditors to the club, as it was secured.
Therefore that loan was from a shareholder, but was the opposite of being subordinated. |
What exactly is Lisa in your opinion right about?
That shareholder loans aren't ordinarily subordinated?
Or that she has uncovered an example of an ultra short term bridge financing provided by Morgan where he for some inexplicable reason required a pledge of security? A bridge financing that although potentially emanating from a shareholder would never be described as a shareholder loan, which customarily denotes something entirely different. |  |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 12:18 - Dec 15 with 1410 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 09:23 - Dec 15 by Shaky |
Now you are really scraping the barrel.
There was some talk of this a while back in connection with related party transactions. What happened is that the club was caught short and Morgan fronted the purchase of the land for the new training complex.
At the accounting date the club had not paid him back so he obviously still owned the land formally pending completion of the transaction. It is nothing to do with a secured shareholder's loan in any accepted use of the term.
For good measure, I guess it is possible that Tan has somehow provided mortgage financing to Cardiff. But firstly I have not seen any evidence of that in the material you have posted, and secondly had he done so it would be mortgage financing which by definition is secured on the property in every country in the world, rather than a shareholders loan according to customary usage of the term.
What does Wikipedia say?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shareholder loan
Shareholder loan is a debt-like form of financing provided by shareholders. Usually, it is the most junior debt in the company's debt portfolio, and since this loan belongs to shareholders it should be treated as equity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_loan#cite_note-2
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
. . and that is right, regardless of the jurisdiction.
End of discussion. |
I have given you three examples now of where a loan from shareholders is not subordinated nor 'quasi equity'. You have responded with a definition from wikipedia (which is (a) US based and as I have told you the rules are different, and (b) incorrect anyway since it is over simplifying).
So the 'esoteric' examples I could find - one of which is from the company we're actually discussing and another of which is from the nearest other football club to us, is wrong is it - trumped by a sentence from the ultra reliable wikipedia? Don't be ridiculous.
There are very strict rules over here on what is equity and what is debt, and I can assure you that a loan from a shareholder which carries the characteristics of debt, i.e. security, repayment dates, an interest rate etc, is absolutely not treated as equity.
Give it a rest. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 12:19 - Dec 15 with 1405 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| The future of SCFC on 12:18 - Dec 15 by londonlisa2001 |
I have given you three examples now of where a loan from shareholders is not subordinated nor 'quasi equity'. You have responded with a definition from wikipedia (which is (a) US based and as I have told you the rules are different, and (b) incorrect anyway since it is over simplifying).
So the 'esoteric' examples I could find - one of which is from the company we're actually discussing and another of which is from the nearest other football club to us, is wrong is it - trumped by a sentence from the ultra reliable wikipedia? Don't be ridiculous.
There are very strict rules over here on what is equity and what is debt, and I can assure you that a loan from a shareholder which carries the characteristics of debt, i.e. security, repayment dates, an interest rate etc, is absolutely not treated as equity.
Give it a rest. |
He's the Parlay of the financial world |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 12:29 - Dec 15 with 1391 views | jackonicko |
| The future of SCFC on 11:30 - Dec 15 by Shaky |
What exactly is Lisa in your opinion right about?
That shareholder loans aren't ordinarily subordinated?
Or that she has uncovered an example of an ultra short term bridge financing provided by Morgan where he for some inexplicable reason required a pledge of security? A bridge financing that although potentially emanating from a shareholder would never be described as a shareholder loan, which customarily denotes something entirely different. |
But now you've changed the question. You didn't say shareholder loans aren't ordinarily subordinated. You said shareholder loans are always subordinated. The difference is very important.
I agree shareholder loans are commonly subordinated. That makes perfect sense in many businesses. Except when they're not. That was Lisa's point.
Lisa has given some examples of when they're not, which are relevant to the very football club we are discussing, and the nearest one to us geographically.
EDIT - now just seen Lisa's post! [Post edited 15 Dec 2014 12:30]
| | | |
| The future of SCFC on 12:43 - Dec 15 with 1354 views | jackonicko |
| The future of SCFC on 23:05 - Dec 14 by londonlisa2001 |
Chris, I have no idea what happened. I assume that Leigh was offered the chance to invest privately (or requested the chance) and took it up to put in £50k or whatever it was of his own money and the other shareholders were prepared to allow it to happen.
In terms of why Richard was against it, I assume that as a genuinely honourable man who was utterly selfless in his desire to establish and promote the whole notion of supporter ownership and as a tireless leader of the push for the Trust to have as big a say as possible in our club for ever more, he found the notion that someone was prepared to use their position as Trust representative to ultimately further their personal situation to be something that he found disingenuous. I also think that once Leigh became a shareholder in his own right, he (and the other Trust leadership) did not believe that the interests of the Trust would be properly served by Leigh continuing to represent the Trust on the board as it was such an obvious conflict of interest.
Richard believed I think in the 'rightness' of the trust and public fan ownership of the club and I suspect was disappointed that those who he thought had the same view, ultimately did not.
I would think though that Phil and others would know far more about the detail of what happened than I do - this is simply my perception and it may be wrong. |
Only just had a chance to circle back to this - didn't realise the question was being asked on this thread as well.
Lisa has given a good summary. However, if I was typing it I would have added emphasis.
My issue with the whole thing is that Leigh was a member of the board *only* because he was representing the interests of the thousands of members of the supporters trust. It wasn't his money tied up in the club shares that he was representing, it was ours.
However, as a consequence of his position on the board - solely in his capacity of representing the supporters - he was given an opportunity to invest his own money in the club. That opportunity wasn't opened up to the rest of the supporters.
In my opinion, he was only able to do this because he had a seat on the board representing the fans. To me, the conflict of interest was at this point, not later. To be clear, this wasn't illegal or anything like that, but I believe it shouldn't have been allowed to happen. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The future of SCFC on 12:43 - Dec 15 with 1352 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 12:29 - Dec 15 by jackonicko |
But now you've changed the question. You didn't say shareholder loans aren't ordinarily subordinated. You said shareholder loans are always subordinated. The difference is very important.
I agree shareholder loans are commonly subordinated. That makes perfect sense in many businesses. Except when they're not. That was Lisa's point.
Lisa has given some examples of when they're not, which are relevant to the very football club we are discussing, and the nearest one to us geographically.
EDIT - now just seen Lisa's post! [Post edited 15 Dec 2014 12:30]
|
Indeed - the actual statement I made was as follows:
"It is simply not true that any debt provided by people that also hold shares has to be subordinated debt. Nor does it have to be quasi equity or anything else. Shareholder loans are often subordinated, in the absence of security, but they are not necessarily so. Neither do they have to be convertible, nor anything else. They can be just debt. "
And, for those that think this is just a question of semantics - it really is quite important. The reason it is important is that no one starts getting the idea that a loan from the US investors 'isn't actually debt' or 'shows they are aligned' or anything else. If these guys put money in that is secured on the assets of the club, it is debt in exactly the same way as debt from a bank would be - proper debt, that the club properly owe and should be treated as such. It's really crucial that people understand that. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 13:09 - Dec 15 with 1303 views | Shaky |
| The future of SCFC on 12:43 - Dec 15 by londonlisa2001 |
Indeed - the actual statement I made was as follows:
"It is simply not true that any debt provided by people that also hold shares has to be subordinated debt. Nor does it have to be quasi equity or anything else. Shareholder loans are often subordinated, in the absence of security, but they are not necessarily so. Neither do they have to be convertible, nor anything else. They can be just debt. "
And, for those that think this is just a question of semantics - it really is quite important. The reason it is important is that no one starts getting the idea that a loan from the US investors 'isn't actually debt' or 'shows they are aligned' or anything else. If these guys put money in that is secured on the assets of the club, it is debt in exactly the same way as debt from a bank would be - proper debt, that the club properly owe and should be treated as such. It's really crucial that people understand that. |
You have absolutely no idea what form the contemplated financing from the American will take.
However, you are arguing that it will be the exception rather than the rule.
And I am in no doubt that has become your default position on account of the horror with which you view the prospect that the structure I set out on November 4 will be used.
For the sake of good order I should say I still back it, and to refresh our recollection this is what I said then:
" new investment would be viewed as a form of subordinated debt, that I would propose to structure as Redeemable Preference Shares on something along the lines of the following summary terms:
Amount: As required
Redemption: At the discretion of the board.
Coupon: 1.5-2.5%, with the option to be paid as PIK shares (Payment In Kind) of an identical class
Voting Rights: Doesn't matter as long as the consent of the relevant majority of existing shares is required
Preference: Liquidation rights "
http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/swanseacity/forum/129661/page:6#.VI7cEnvIm | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 13:14 - Dec 15 with 1293 views | MillJack |
| The future of SCFC on 12:43 - Dec 15 by jackonicko |
Only just had a chance to circle back to this - didn't realise the question was being asked on this thread as well.
Lisa has given a good summary. However, if I was typing it I would have added emphasis.
My issue with the whole thing is that Leigh was a member of the board *only* because he was representing the interests of the thousands of members of the supporters trust. It wasn't his money tied up in the club shares that he was representing, it was ours.
However, as a consequence of his position on the board - solely in his capacity of representing the supporters - he was given an opportunity to invest his own money in the club. That opportunity wasn't opened up to the rest of the supporters.
In my opinion, he was only able to do this because he had a seat on the board representing the fans. To me, the conflict of interest was at this point, not later. To be clear, this wasn't illegal or anything like that, but I believe it shouldn't have been allowed to happen. |
He's done pretty well out of it ever since as well has he not?
I think this is the point that The2ndComing is trying to allude to. Did the club need the investment at that point, particularly when those shares were purchased (apparently for the same price) some years after those of the other Directors, when the club wasn't in need of "saving".
If then, as has been rumoured, it transpires that Mr Dineen sells those shares to a foreign investor at a huge profit then that will leave a very sour taste with many people.
Now clearly the above scenario is speculation at the moment, and I have no more knowledge about it than anyone else on here, but it is worrying. |  | | |
| The future of SCFC on 13:16 - Dec 15 with 1284 views | dobjack2 |
| The future of SCFC on 12:43 - Dec 15 by londonlisa2001 |
Indeed - the actual statement I made was as follows:
"It is simply not true that any debt provided by people that also hold shares has to be subordinated debt. Nor does it have to be quasi equity or anything else. Shareholder loans are often subordinated, in the absence of security, but they are not necessarily so. Neither do they have to be convertible, nor anything else. They can be just debt. "
And, for those that think this is just a question of semantics - it really is quite important. The reason it is important is that no one starts getting the idea that a loan from the US investors 'isn't actually debt' or 'shows they are aligned' or anything else. If these guys put money in that is secured on the assets of the club, it is debt in exactly the same way as debt from a bank would be - proper debt, that the club properly owe and should be treated as such. It's really crucial that people understand that. |
Maybe wrong but i thought that was also the case when Doug was owner I.e. that there was debt owed by the Swans to Doug or one of his companies.
That debt would not be called in whilst Doug was owner but was a liability for any purchaser of the club. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 13:16 - Dec 15 with 1282 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 13:09 - Dec 15 by Shaky |
You have absolutely no idea what form the contemplated financing from the American will take.
However, you are arguing that it will be the exception rather than the rule.
And I am in no doubt that has become your default position on account of the horror with which you view the prospect that the structure I set out on November 4 will be used.
For the sake of good order I should say I still back it, and to refresh our recollection this is what I said then:
" new investment would be viewed as a form of subordinated debt, that I would propose to structure as Redeemable Preference Shares on something along the lines of the following summary terms:
Amount: As required
Redemption: At the discretion of the board.
Coupon: 1.5-2.5%, with the option to be paid as PIK shares (Payment In Kind) of an identical class
Voting Rights: Doesn't matter as long as the consent of the relevant majority of existing shares is required
Preference: Liquidation rights "
http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/swanseacity/forum/129661/page:6#.VI7cEnvIm |
Neither do you. But for you to understand, debt isn't redeemable preference shares. Redeemable preference shares aren't debt. They are two completely different things.
And, yes, I would be very surprised indeed if a bunch of Americans with no interest in the club per se lent the club say £25m - £30m without security. Why do you think the stadium has suddenly come into play?
But then I get my knowledge on this stuff from experience not wikipedia. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 13:18 - Dec 15 with 1280 views | skippyjack |
The 50,000 shares hasn't disappeared.. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 13:19 - Dec 15 with 1276 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 13:16 - Dec 15 by dobjack2 |
Maybe wrong but i thought that was also the case when Doug was owner I.e. that there was debt owed by the Swans to Doug or one of his companies.
That debt would not be called in whilst Doug was owner but was a liability for any purchaser of the club. |
when the current ownership came about there was a debt in place that had arisen through loans from shareholders as well but had then been sold (I think).
It's nonsense I'm afraid - Cardiff have spent the past two years talking about Tan doing a debt to equity conversion - don't know why they are bothering - wikipedia (and Shaky) say that it's the same thing. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 13:22 - Dec 15 with 1271 views | Shaky |
| The future of SCFC on 12:29 - Dec 15 by jackonicko |
But now you've changed the question. You didn't say shareholder loans aren't ordinarily subordinated. You said shareholder loans are always subordinated. The difference is very important.
I agree shareholder loans are commonly subordinated. That makes perfect sense in many businesses. Except when they're not. That was Lisa's point.
Lisa has given some examples of when they're not, which are relevant to the very football club we are discussing, and the nearest one to us geographically.
EDIT - now just seen Lisa's post! [Post edited 15 Dec 2014 12:30]
|
I never said "shareholder loans are always subordinated". In fact I specifically held out the possibility there there might be instances where they were not.
But that does not alter the fact that if you mention the term shareholder loan amongst people who know what they are talking about in the context of long term financing, the default assumption is that it will be subordinated. | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 13:26 - Dec 15 with 1260 views | Shaky |
| The future of SCFC on 13:16 - Dec 15 by londonlisa2001 |
Neither do you. But for you to understand, debt isn't redeemable preference shares. Redeemable preference shares aren't debt. They are two completely different things.
And, yes, I would be very surprised indeed if a bunch of Americans with no interest in the club per se lent the club say £25m - £30m without security. Why do you think the stadium has suddenly come into play?
But then I get my knowledge on this stuff from experience not wikipedia. |
We'll just have to see about all that, won't we? | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 13:31 - Dec 15 with 1243 views | jackonicko |
| The future of SCFC on 13:19 - Dec 15 by londonlisa2001 |
when the current ownership came about there was a debt in place that had arisen through loans from shareholders as well but had then been sold (I think).
It's nonsense I'm afraid - Cardiff have spent the past two years talking about Tan doing a debt to equity conversion - don't know why they are bothering - wikipedia (and Shaky) say that it's the same thing. |
Indeed there was. The reason why Mel Nurse should always be called a legend.
Ninth Floor had a debt of £800,000 lodged on the football club balance sheet, which represented the funds they pumped into the club to keep it afloat during their period of ownership. Mel then "bought" that debt off Ninth Floor for about £100,000. Ninth Floor transferred the ownership of the £800,000 debt to Mel's name and the £800k debt the club owed continued to exist, even though he only paid £100,000 for it.
When the CVA happened, that £800k debt was settled at 5p in the £. Therefore, Mel got £40,000 (5% of £800k) back. So he lost £60,000 on the deal.
Mel also bought 50,000 shares at £1 per share as part of the original consortium. He got a profitable return when he sold his 50,000 shares back to the club for £8 per share. Mel also received one dividend payment of £1 per share for our first year in the Premier League). | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 13:36 - Dec 15 with 1232 views | Uxbridge |
| The future of SCFC on 13:14 - Dec 15 by MillJack |
He's done pretty well out of it ever since as well has he not?
I think this is the point that The2ndComing is trying to allude to. Did the club need the investment at that point, particularly when those shares were purchased (apparently for the same price) some years after those of the other Directors, when the club wasn't in need of "saving".
If then, as has been rumoured, it transpires that Mr Dineen sells those shares to a foreign investor at a huge profit then that will leave a very sour taste with many people.
Now clearly the above scenario is speculation at the moment, and I have no more knowledge about it than anyone else on here, but it is worrying. |
I don't think the club was particularly desperate for £40k in 2007. [Post edited 15 Dec 2014 13:37]
| |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 13:37 - Dec 15 with 1228 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 13:22 - Dec 15 by Shaky |
I never said "shareholder loans are always subordinated". In fact I specifically held out the possibility there there might be instances where they were not.
But that does not alter the fact that if you mention the term shareholder loan amongst people who know what they are talking about in the context of long term financing, the default assumption is that it will be subordinated. |
You said:
"Furthermore, it is technically incorrect to talk about this as debt. The correct term is subordinated debt or shareholders' loan. This is a critical distinction because this type of financial instrument has properties of both debt and equity, which is why is is often referred to as quasi-equity by experts like me. And that distinction is by no means semantic, which may make it more palatable to Jenkins. "
In other words, you said that debt from shareholders is not debt (you say "technically incorrect to call it debt") and said that shareholders' loans are subordinated debt.
I simply pointed out that although often the case that it is subordinated, it is not always so and gave specific examples. It is hardly ever the case in the UK that it is treated as equity (although I now see that wikipedia talks about quasi equity in the reference you gave, so I can see where your 'expert' advice has come from.
Beep, beep, beep - this vehicle is reversing ;-)
Shaky - it's more important that people understand that this will be debt than you trying to defend your indefensible statement. And wikipedia doesn't count as 'people who know what they're talking about'. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 13:41 - Dec 15 with 1212 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 13:31 - Dec 15 by jackonicko |
Indeed there was. The reason why Mel Nurse should always be called a legend.
Ninth Floor had a debt of £800,000 lodged on the football club balance sheet, which represented the funds they pumped into the club to keep it afloat during their period of ownership. Mel then "bought" that debt off Ninth Floor for about £100,000. Ninth Floor transferred the ownership of the £800,000 debt to Mel's name and the £800k debt the club owed continued to exist, even though he only paid £100,000 for it.
When the CVA happened, that £800k debt was settled at 5p in the £. Therefore, Mel got £40,000 (5% of £800k) back. So he lost £60,000 on the deal.
Mel also bought 50,000 shares at £1 per share as part of the original consortium. He got a profitable return when he sold his 50,000 shares back to the club for £8 per share. Mel also received one dividend payment of £1 per share for our first year in the Premier League). |
It's a shame he didn't have wikipedia to fall back on - he could have saved himself the money by simply announcing that the debt wasn't really debt, it was 'quasi equity'.
In all seriousness though, Mel was a complete hero I agree. He is also very very interesting to listen to on some issues ... | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 13:46 - Dec 15 with 1199 views | Shaky |
| The future of SCFC on 13:37 - Dec 15 by londonlisa2001 |
You said:
"Furthermore, it is technically incorrect to talk about this as debt. The correct term is subordinated debt or shareholders' loan. This is a critical distinction because this type of financial instrument has properties of both debt and equity, which is why is is often referred to as quasi-equity by experts like me. And that distinction is by no means semantic, which may make it more palatable to Jenkins. "
In other words, you said that debt from shareholders is not debt (you say "technically incorrect to call it debt") and said that shareholders' loans are subordinated debt.
I simply pointed out that although often the case that it is subordinated, it is not always so and gave specific examples. It is hardly ever the case in the UK that it is treated as equity (although I now see that wikipedia talks about quasi equity in the reference you gave, so I can see where your 'expert' advice has come from.
Beep, beep, beep - this vehicle is reversing ;-)
Shaky - it's more important that people understand that this will be debt than you trying to defend your indefensible statement. And wikipedia doesn't count as 'people who know what they're talking about'. |
" I now see that wikipedia talks about quasi equity in the reference you gave"
Where does it say that? | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 13:49 - Dec 15 with 1187 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 13:46 - Dec 15 by Shaky |
" I now see that wikipedia talks about quasi equity in the reference you gave"
Where does it say that? |
"Shareholder loan is a debt-like form of financing provided by shareholders. Usually, it is the most junior debt in the company's debt portfolio, and since this loan belongs to shareholders it should be treated as equity."
This is what you cut and paste in your response to me a couple of hours ago - Shaky - I'm concerned - are you losing it a little today? Not too many drinkies over the weekend I hope. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 13:54 - Dec 15 with 1175 views | MillJack |
| The future of SCFC on 13:46 - Dec 15 by Shaky |
" I now see that wikipedia talks about quasi equity in the reference you gave"
Where does it say that? |
There comes a point where sometimes it's better to just agree to disagree. Mainly for the benefit of everyone else on the forum. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 13:55 - Dec 15 with 1170 views | Shaky |
| The future of SCFC on 13:49 - Dec 15 by londonlisa2001 |
"Shareholder loan is a debt-like form of financing provided by shareholders. Usually, it is the most junior debt in the company's debt portfolio, and since this loan belongs to shareholders it should be treated as equity."
This is what you cut and paste in your response to me a couple of hours ago - Shaky - I'm concerned - are you losing it a little today? Not too many drinkies over the weekend I hope. |
Where does it say quasi-equity? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
