Rumours and Stuff

[Poupou Escobar]

I hear Ricky thinks he may of been sold a dud, re: Sanders.

Did you hear it from an Eels fan with sour grapes? Raiders fans are probably as clueless as we are, but this lot seem to think Sanders will be playing this year:

https://www.thegh.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36852&sid=959aabfa15e923f255bbfcbb0c0de7ab

 

[Soto]

Why? They might have just acquired a $4M property at 80% market value.

Still need to make repayments.
Approval would have been granted on said income.
Pretty clear and obvious

 

[Tiger5150]

Still need to make repayments.
Approval would have been granted on said income.
Pretty clear and obvious

If he cant make the repayments, the bank then owns the property for 80% of market value. Repayments are irrelevant. Bank has almost zero risk, they are not sweating.

VERY clear and obvious.

 

[Soto]

If he cant make the repayments, the bank then owns the property for 80% of market value. Repayments are irrelevant. Bank has almost zero risk, they are not sweating.

VERY clear and obvious.

You clearly do not work in banking and adding no value to this conversation or this forum...just go stink up your shitty tigers forum

 

[Tiger5150]

You clearly do not work in banking and adding no value to this conversation or this forum...just go stink up your shitty tigers forum

Insult taken FWIW.....now explain how the bank is sweating or at risk.

 

[T-Boon]

Are they likely to use information obtained from Storm/agents in court to pressure the NRL outside of it?

Material obtained under subpoena cannot be used for purposes outside the something. It is subject to something. That is what T-Boon Legal and Conveyancing reckons anyway.

 

[T-Boon]

I should probably add that I didn't hate my mum, or anything like that - I just strongly believe in justice, and was shocked she got off so lightly.

I would have had her do 12 months on the inside. Then another 6 months on parole.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Material obtained under subpoena cannot be used for purposes outside the something. It is subject to something. That is what T-Boon Legal and Conveyancing reckons anyway.

Did you know a husband and wife can't be arrested for the same crime?

 

[Timana]

Maybe Flanno lent him some moolah or ba remortgaged his house for him

 

[T-Boon]

Did you know a husband and wife can't be arrested for the same crime?

Rosemary and Fred West ?

 

[Gronk]

It’s pointless trying to predict what is going to happen in Friday 13th.

The way I see it, the clause will be set aside. Or it won’t. Or the clause will be deemed to be ok but a little harsh. So he’ll tweek it.

I reckon this case has already been examined inside out.

Adamson v NSW Rugby League Ltd (1991) 31 FCR 242

 

[Noise]

Did you know a husband and wife can't be arrested for the same crime?

Seems unfair to a wife and wife

 

[Soren Lorenson]

It’s pointless trying to predict what is going to happen in Friday 13th.

The way I see it, the clause will be set aside. Or it won’t. Or the clause will be deemed to be ok but a little harsh. So he’ll tweek it.

I reckon this case has already been examined inside out.

Adamson v NSW Rugby League Ltd (1991) 31 FCR 242

Are you saying that there might be a precedent!

 

[85 Baby]

Insult taken FWIW.....now explain how the bank is sweating or at risk.

Whilst I think @Soto exaggerated when he said very nervous, as one property isn’t itself a huge problem, but banks don’t want to take houses. They don’t magically receive a property for 80% of value, they’ve already paid that 80% to the seller, and they earn their money off interest repayments, if no one has loan over property, they get zero. What businesses are you aware of that are happy to fork out ~$3m and get nothing in return?
Again exaggeration to be clear because they’d still be able to get someone to take mortgage, but it runs the risk of less income than the original mortgage.
And before there’s suggestion it’s an asset to them, it’s only an asset as a mortgage. Because the chances of them selling any home in Australia outright to someone who isn’t a bank is a significantly smaller market.

You’re welcome yet again.

 

[Glenneel]

Then you are both wrong


I didnt say the same thing at all, I pointed out that its federal law, not a state law and the court doesnt look at previous cases as a guide, the court is literally bound by previous decisions. It is what the law is.

 

[Glenneel]

Then you are both wrong


I didnt say the same thing at all, I pointed out that its federal law, not a state law and the court doesnt look at previous cases as a guide, the court is literally bound by previous decisions. It is what the law is.

You literally contradicted yourself here.

 

[Glenneel]

From what I understand he's giving Hannay this year to turn things around. After that, he would most likely test the waters if the Tit's go belly up.

*go back to the scum.

 

[Soren Lorenson]

Whilst I think @Soto exaggerated when he said very nervous, as one property isn’t itself a huge problem, but banks don’t want to take houses. They don’t magically receive a property for 80% of value, they’ve already paid that 80% to the seller, and they earn their money off interest repayments, if no one has loan over property, they get zero. What businesses are you aware of that are happy to fork out ~$3m and get nothing in return?
Again exaggeration to be clear because they’d still be able to get someone to take mortgage, but it runs the risk of less income than the original mortgage.
And before there’s suggestion it’s an asset to them, it’s only an asset as a mortgage. Because the chances of them selling any home in Australia outright to someone who isn’t a bank is a significantly smaller market.

30yrs of interest on a 3 bazillion dollar loan gone up in a Lomax shaped puff of smoke. I’d wouldn’t be nervous, but I would be a tad pissed off.

 

[85 Baby]

30yrs of interest on a 3 bazillion dollar loan gone up in a Lomax shaped puff of smoke. I’d be nervous.

Depends which lender and then probably not the business itself but Joe Loaner working for them may be a tad concerned about his bonus

 

[Soto]

Whilst I think @Soto exaggerated when he said very nervous, as one property isn’t itself a huge problem, but banks don’t want to take houses. They don’t magically receive a property for 80% of value, they’ve already paid that 80% to the seller, and they earn their money off interest repayments, if no one has loan over property, they get zero. What businesses are you aware of that are happy to fork out ~$3m and get nothing in return?
Again exaggeration to be clear because they’d still be able to get someone to take mortgage, but it runs the risk of less income than the original mortgage.
And before there’s suggestion it’s an asset to them, it’s only an asset as a mortgage. Because the chances of them selling any home in Australia outright to someone who isn’t a bank is a significantly smaller market.

You’re welcome yet again.

The time, effort, negotiation, engaging external legal, court hearings, mediation, property listings, sherrifs changing locks etc if owner is booted is very high when all factored in. Hence why Banks despite the alarmist stories which appear every now and then, DONT want to repossess homes if can be avoided.
Anyways remember if someone can afford it on $650k may not ve able to meet repayments if now only on $400k..
Hopefully this gives everyone an understanding of the way banks assess loans and whats involved to repossess if it was to ever come to that