Rumours and Stuff

[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.

Double post

 

[Gronk]

Are you saying that there might be a precedent!

I'm saying there are enough precedents already. Big Bad Barry Hall went to the Federal Court about unreasonable restraint and the court didn't go black n white.

Look at it yourselves, I have given you enough to say that anyone who says they "know" what the decision will be, doesn't.

If they do make a prediction, they just rolled the dice and had a punt.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Seems unfair to a wife and wife

It's an old fashioned law.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

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

If banks wanted to own residential real estate, they would just buy it outright instead of lending money for it.

 

[Soren Lorenson]

I'm saying there are enough precedents already. Big Bad Barry Hall went to the Federal Court about unreasonable restraint and the court didn't go black n white.

Look at it yourselves, I have given you enough to say that anyone who says they "know" what the decision will be, doesn't.

If they do make a prediction, they just rolled the dice and had a punt.

I know, I was poking fun at the stupid argument tiger boy and 80s man were having for days.

 

[T-Boon]

I think what will happen is it will settle prior to the hearing by way of Melbourne giving us a couple of up and comers.

 

[hindy111]

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.

Do you do wills?

 

[T-Boon]

We should extend the list of players we would take to a list of about 12 players some of whom would have to be a combo.

 

[Noise]

I think what will happen is it will settle prior to the hearing by way of Melbourne giving us a couple of up and comers.

f**k no. I don’t want a couple of players who might never be first grade standard let alone origin standard.

 

[Gary Gutful]

If he does end up playing in Melbourne I’ll be at every training session heckling him.

 

[Gary Gutful]

tiger boy and 80s man

Sounds like the title of a shitty US sitcom.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I think what will happen is it will settle prior to the hearing by way of Melbourne giving us a couple of up and comers.

Those up and comers signed with the Storm for a reason.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Do you do wills?

He does but 95% of his work is personal injury.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Sounds like the title of a shitty US sitcom.

 

[hineyrulz]

Sounds like the title of a shitty US sitcom.

2 and half inch Tigerman.

 

[85 Baby]

View attachment 109191

That is my teenage years.

I’m talking about the tiger.

 

[85 Baby]

I know, I was poking fun at the stupid argument tiger boy and 80s man were having for days.

We’ve taken it back to the Macquarie Uni law tutors fan forum

 

[T-Boon]

He does but 95% of his work is personal injury.

Slip and fall stuff like Jimmy McGill

 

[eels_fan]

In my crystal ball I think the court will rule the release clause invalid due to demise of R360 being outside Zac’s control, and that had he known R360 wasn’t going to happen we would not have agreed to such a clause.

the clause being overturned will lead to the court stating as original “owners” of the contract, we can legally enforce Zac to return to the eels and recommence the existing contract. As we no longer want Zac, potentially don’t even have the capacity cap-wise to do so even if we wanted him, that we must agreed to a termination without conditions, with a nominal financial settlement from Zac to be paid to the club (benefits us in zero way really)

I genuinely think we’ll be told to choose between taking Zac back, or giving him an unencumbered release. We won’t be choosing option 1.

 

[T-Boon]

My train is stopped at Werris creek.