Argyle's Sponsor in Trouble?

Pokesdown wrote:

hairy j wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

hairy j wrote:

I hope, if this is true, we won't have people gleeful and triumphant as Nikkkkkkkk has a family and employees who will suffer. Keep it classy ATD.

Another blatant attempt to continue your boring war.

Oh do feck off. Boring war? Against who? All I can see is a few, select grinning bastards hoping they can laugh at Newell via the possible death of a business his friend owns - that's pathetic and pretty evil.

Evil....? Your reasoning doesn't stand up to scrutiny though. People work in all manner of businesses that I dislike intensely and I hope they all lose their jobs - cigarette manufacturers and arms companies for example. Whatever you say Nikkk's companies offer a perfectly legal service as a distressed lender. For that service they charge very high levels of interest (in comparison to more standard products - we've had the debate many times on here). I'm not exactly proud of the association of that type of company with local youth football and the family end. Just my opinion. I'm certainly not going to shed a tear if those lenders go bust. I find it incredibly sad that in one of the worlds richest countries such money lending has a market at all.

Nothing to do with any personal dislike of any individuals.

Amen to that brother Poker, years ago building societies were set up to lend to the people who couldn't get bank loans then the government allowed the building societies to become banks now we have pay day loan companies charging 2500% interest, luckily we are all in it together so nothing to worry about.   

We have got Flybe cutting costs like there is no tomorrow, shame the club don't follow suit, and Follet Stock in liquidation, how the feck a bunch of thieving solicitors can go bust I dunno, so as usual, should this rumour have foundation, we beat you to it once again.

What I don't get is how anybody who is in the position to need to borrow to run a business or anything else can afford to pay 27% to Nikk the userer, bleds countries go bust at 7%.

That's up to Nik and his clients, really, isn't it? How does the interest he cahrges compare to the interest charged on, for instance, credit cards? If they could borrow more cheaply then they probably would.

The thing about this that baffles me is why somebody would put such a huge, well it seems huge to me, sum of money into a football club without any intention of either buying into the club or getting the money back. It's bizarre.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

That's up to Nik and his clients, really, isn't it? How does the interest he cahrges compare to the interest charged on, for instance, credit cards? If they could borrow more cheaply then they probably would.

The thing about this that baffles me is why somebody would put such a huge, well it seems huge to me, sum of money into a football club without any intention of either buying into the club or getting the money back. It's bizarre.

i know and i think you do too and everyone else does deep down. Does anyone dare to say it publicly though thats the question.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

That's up to Nik and his clients, really, isn't it? How does the interest he cahrges compare to the interest charged on, for instance, credit cards? If they could borrow more cheaply then they probably would.

The thing about this that baffles me is why somebody would put such a huge, well it seems huge to me, sum of money into a football club without any intention of either buying into the club or getting the money back. It's bizarre.

Often wondered that as there can be no increase in custom for the business. Taking out a non standard loan is not a discretionary purchase. Frankly you're probably grateful to be given the opportunity.

No return, no investment and little influence.

Doesn't make sense at the levels he's given unless your business is doing so well that the sum is a relatively small one compared to your overall income.

I feel for any staff in this situation that FES may or may not have found itself in but I tend to agree regarding Pokey's comments and I would feel a little happier to have a more morally acceptable sponsor of the Club.

As far as Nikk himself is concerned I have nothing really against the guy, I found the pretense auction crap quite pitiful though, it was an embarrassingly cringe worthy PR campaign at best and a little sad that he felt he needed to boost his popularity with such an obvious game of one upmanship over PASOTI's users when he could have easily just handed over a wedge instead of all the drama and pretense. Still, the Club done well out of it and if it made him feel good then, geddon!

As for Hairy's comments, well he shot his load to quick and played the drama queen card to early.

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

That's up to Nik and his clients, really, isn't it? How does the interest he cahrges compare to the interest charged on, for instance, credit cards? If they could borrow more cheaply then they probably would.

The thing about this that baffles me is why somebody would put such a huge, well it seems huge to me, sum of money into a football club without any intention of either buying into the club or getting the money back. It's bizarre.

i know and i think you do too and everyone else does deep down. Does anyone dare to say it publicly though thats the question.

The penny hasn't dropped with me yet?

I very much do not know.

I could speculate but I certainly do not know. I don't even have an inkling.

It certainly seems illogical and not something we'd see Mr Brent do. Collateral, loans and/or equity all the way for him.

GOB wrote:

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

That's up to Nik and his clients, really, isn't it? How does the interest he cahrges compare to the interest charged on, for instance, credit cards? If they could borrow more cheaply then they probably would.

The thing about this that baffles me is why somebody would put such a huge, well it seems huge to me, sum of money into a football club without any intention of either buying into the club or getting the money back. It's bizarre.

i know and i think you do too and everyone else does deep down. Does anyone dare to say it publicly though thats the question.

The penny hasn't dropped with me yet?

you will when you think about it and then it will seem obvious itts been mentioned before on here i think but im not sure.

Angry wrote:

GOB wrote:

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

That's up to Nik and his clients, really, isn't it? How does the interest he cahrges compare to the interest charged on, for instance, credit cards? If they could borrow more cheaply then they probably would.

The thing about this that baffles me is why somebody would put such a huge, well it seems huge to me, sum of money into a football club without any intention of either buying into the club or getting the money back. It's bizarre.

i know and i think you do too and everyone else does deep down. Does anyone dare to say it publicly though thats the question.

The penny hasn't dropped with me yet?

you will when you think about it and then it will seem obvious itts been mentioned before on here i think but im not sure.

I can only think of two reasons why any business would do such a thing, 1) Tax assistance and 2) To gain a foothold in a boardroom?

How about ADVERTISING/PUBLICITY for FES/FIL, is there anything that doesn't have one or the other of their names attached ? we've got FES on the shirts, the FES Demport end, FIL family enclosure, FIL flyers and god knows what else. If this rumour is true though their saturation policy seems to have failed.

Can anyone guess how much he has put in?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

That's up to Nik and his clients, really, isn't it? How does the interest he cahrges compare to the interest charged on, for instance, credit cards? If they could borrow more cheaply then they probably would.

You are right Franny, but FES charges are pretty much up there with the higher end reputable credit card companies. if there is such a thing, I have a card which charges 11.9% on balances plus others which spend half their lives offering me interest free money, charges range from 2.9% to 4.5% with terms from 12 to 18 months.

That of course was not really my point. As you say these people must have no access to cheaper unsecured funds, what I don't get is the rationale that allows someone to think they can afford 27% when they are probably putting up their house as security, 3000% is fine imho as long as you intend to put two fingers up when it comes to repayment, With FES you must have at least the value of the loan in pretty solid equity, their customers must be either desperate or stupid, I disagree with userers being allowed to exploit either category on moral grounds.

ps. Just heard that cack Mr Wonga ad on t'radio, It's just plain wrong, loan sharking is illegal, unless you pay for a Guv licence.

GOB wrote:

The penny hasn't dropped with me yet?

Me neither, Mr.Angry, please poo or get off the pot.

Jack Sheppard wrote:

How about ADVERTISING/PUBLICITY for FES/FIL, is there anything that doesn't have one or the other of their names attached ? we've got FES on the shirts, the FES Demport end, FIL family enclosure, FIL flyers and god knows what else. If this rumour is true though their saturation policy seems to have failed.

But most of their products are sold through brokers and clients do not call FES directly. If it were about business then he would be taking those brokers out on jollies.

need cowboy traders in

Pokesdown wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

How about ADVERTISING/PUBLICITY for FES/FIL, is there anything that doesn't have one or the other of their names attached ? we've got FES on the shirts, the FES Demport end, FIL family enclosure, FIL flyers and god knows what else. If this rumour is true though their saturation policy seems to have failed.

But most of their products are sold through brokers and clients do not call FES directly. If it were about business then he would be taking those brokers out on jollies.

So if it's not about advertising or publicity for FES/FIL can you explain why their names are plastered across everything PAFC ?

Jack Sheppard wrote:

Pokesdown wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

How about ADVERTISING/PUBLICITY for FES/FIL, is there anything that doesn't have one or the other of their names attached ? we've got FES on the shirts, the FES Demport end, FIL family enclosure, FIL flyers and god knows what else. If this rumour is true though their saturation policy seems to have failed.

But most of their products are sold through brokers and clients do not call FES directly. If it were about business then he would be taking those brokers out on jollies.

So if it's not about advertising or publicity for FES/FIL can you explain why their names are plastered across everything PAFC ?

cause they are the only people who are interested in putting money into the club

Jack Sheppard wrote:

Davidfriio4 wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

Pokesdown wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

How about ADVERTISING/PUBLICITY for FES/FIL, is there anything that doesn't have one or the other of their names attached ? we've got FES on the shirts, the FES Demport end, FIL family enclosure, FIL flyers and god knows what else. If this rumour is true though their saturation policy seems to have failed.

But most of their products are sold through brokers and clients do not call FES directly. If it were about business then he would be taking those brokers out on jollies.

So if it's not about advertising or publicity for FES/FIL can you explain why their names are plastered across everything PAFC ?

cause they are the only people who are interested in putting money into the club

do it then the world will be another wanker short.

Davidfriio4 wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

Davidfriio4 wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

Pokesdown wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

How about ADVERTISING/PUBLICITY for FES/FIL, is there anything that doesn't have one or the other of their names attached ? we've got FES on the shirts, the FES Demport end, FIL family enclosure, FIL flyers and god knows what else. If this rumour is true though their saturation policy seems to have failed.

But most of their products are sold through brokers and clients do not call FES directly. If it were about business then he would be taking those brokers out on jollies.

So if it's not about advertising or publicity for FES/FIL can you explain why their names are plastered across everything PAFC ?

cause they are the only people who are interested in putting money into the club

do it then the world will be another wanker short.

Big mouth, small brain..........you obnoxious prick.

Jack Sheppard wrote:

Davidfriio4 wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

Davidfriio4 wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

Pokesdown wrote:

Jack Sheppard wrote:

How about ADVERTISING/PUBLICITY for FES/FIL, is there anything that doesn't have one or the other of their names attached ? we've got FES on the shirts, the FES Demport end, FIL family enclosure, FIL flyers and god knows what else. If this rumour is true though their saturation policy seems to have failed.

But most of their products are sold through brokers and clients do not call FES directly. If it were about business then he would be taking those brokers out on jollies.

So if it's not about advertising or publicity for FES/FIL can you explain why their names are plastered across everything PAFC ?

cause they are the only people who are interested in putting money into the club

do it then the world will be another wanker short.

Big mouth, small brain..........you obnoxious prick.

its so sad when someone feels that bad about themselves, that they have to belittle themselves on the internet.
Have you remembered to take your happy pills today,I hope they've taken sharp objects and your shoelaces away from you, just in case.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Can anyone guess how much he has put in?

No idea but from those auctions alone it must be a few bobs worth.

I dont know Nikkkk but don't forget that only some of his money went directly to the club with sponsorship of the Devonport and back of shirts, most of the auction money went to the staff fund and let's not forget the money that went to the fans thru the free travel. Whatever is happening now, however much we may not like his choice of friends, we should all be thankful for his financial assistance.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

I dont know Nikkkk but don't forget that only some of his money went directly to the club with sponsorship of the Devonport and back of shirts, most of the auction money went to the staff fund and let's not forget the money that went to the fans thru the free travel. Whatever is happening now, however much we may not like his choice of friends, we should all be thankful for his financial assistance.

Burn this witch!

Exactly-ish to me. How many businesses are that ethical? Nikkkkk does nothing illegal at all. Without legitimate lenders of all types, you'd have far more real loan sharks. How many football clubs are sponsored by businesses approved by the ATD high-horse massive?