ComeAllWithin
Rugby => ComeAllWithin Board => Topic started by: Bod on Wednesday 27-Mar-2024, 21:03*
-
Yes of course. But many creditors would rather continue to charge interest and delay repayment terms, than to force the debtor out of business and receive nothing. They've already presumably lost the entire capital for 3/12 loans.
-
The clue is in the name. These were LOANS!!!
-
They may be a rounding error to Government, but they are not to the clubs.
The clubs really ought to be able to put a business plan in place to show how they will be repaid.
But that should be a given for every single company that took a loan.
I run a small business and to survive Covid we had to have a bounceback loan.
The terms were that we had to start paying it back after a year. Sure enough in spring 2021, the repayments started to be taken.
Would’ve been nice to be able to wait another 3 years.
-
They may be a rounding error to Government, but they are not to the clubs.
The clubs really ought to be able to put a business plan in place to show how they will be repaid.
But that should be a given for every single company that took a loan.
-
Absolute non-story. The loans given to rugby clubs are a rounding difference. Unlike the billions given to companies who never traded before, during or after the pandemic which will never be recovered.
-
Ummm not sure what to say, other than what did the government expect?
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-13244757/Government-Premiership-rugby-150million-Covid-19-loans.html
"The government are at loggerheads with Premiership rugby clubs over their attempts to secure deferrals on the repayment of over £150million of Covid-19 loans.
The first tranche of payments on loans given to keep professional rugby alive during the pandemic are due imminently, with some clubs seeking to put back the repayment date.
The government are understood to have indicated a willingness to extend the loans in returning for securing a longer repayment period, but want reassurances that the clubs have sustainable business plans and are not simply seeking to put off meeting their financial obligations to taxpayers.
It is understood that there is some frustration in government that having provided loans at low interest rates with a lengthy repayment period some clubs are looking to alter the terms at the first opportunity.
Mail Sport has been told that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport want to impose tougher terms on clubs with the richest owners..........(more)"
This seems like a "rock and hard place" for the clubs - but agreeing terms variations based on the value of the owners seems inequitable?