JD, your sheer persistence in putting the most negative spin possible on any news about Terry's business dealings would be admirable if it wasn't so damned annoying!
Two months ago you implied that Terry had basically conned Mark Dunajtschik into lending him money so that he could buy a building. A bizarre claim considering the circumstances (is Dunajtschik really that stupid?)...
I have heard from a very well placed source that the money came from another NZ property developer BUT that he thought that it was going to be used to buy a building...make of that what you will.[/QUOTE]
You also said this...
I don't actually see how Terry will get out of this without a financial injection from outside his group. If he could sell assets then he would.
Despite the fact that this is what has actually occured with the Tory Street property you're still not happy, now advancing the theory that Dunajtschik only loaned the money to Terry and he has somehow ended up with a building he didn't expect to buy (again, is he really that stupid?)
[QUOTE=james dean]This also worries me, it implies that Terry only borrowed the money to pay the $3.5m ACC money and now isn't able to repay that loan.
Dunajtschik might be putting the building up for sale but it beggars belief that he has ended up in a situation he didn't want to be in. He could have easily not lent Terry money in the first place or given Terry more time to pay him back if that was the case. It seems clear to me that Dunajtschik advanced Terry the money to avoid liquidation with the reasonable expectation that he would end up owning Tory Street (which clearly would have involved him then commiting a much larger sum).
I think you need to be careful how much weight you put on things written in the Dom Post. They obviously have an agenda to make things seem as awful, dramatic, interesting and sell-able as possible and then when you add your own negative spin you end up in a very dark place indeed.
In the meantime, tonight I will go and observe actual evidence that the Nix is a going concern when they play a match at Wakefield Park. Over the next few weeks me and many thousands of others will also hand over money for our season tickets. I remain confident that this cashflow, other contractual payments due to the Nix from sponsorships and TV, plus match -day ticket sales when they come on-stream, will see the Nix through the next season, regardless of the state of Terry's finances.
I know it's your favourite party trick T-X to dig up old posts and claim inconsistency but I don't know what you are getting at here.
In my mind there are 2 possible explanations for what has gone on here.
1. Dunajtschik lent Terry money relatively short term - either in the knowledge it would be used to pay the ACC, or in the belief that it would be used to buy a building (a rumour I merely repeated). He took security over the Tory Street property. Terry hasn't repaid him so now he is enforcing security - he has no interest in the asset other than to be repaid his money - which explains why it is on the market immediately.
I have said nothign to suggest that Dunajtschik is stupid. When you take security over an asset you have to be prepared to exercise your rights against it. That is very different to wanting to be an owner or manager of an asset. I think anyone who has worked with commercial property would recognise this fact pattern.
This is my explanation and I think it makes sense on the facts.
2. Dunajtschik lent Terry money to stop him going involvent because he wanted to buy the Tory Street property. He then waited a time to purchase it, because throughout he's wanted to own the asset but then immediately puts it up for sale with Terry still managing the asset. He's not attempted to add any value to it before selling and has said in the paper that he doesn't want to own the asset.
This is your explanation (I think) and to me it makes very little sense. But each to their own.
According to Dompost sources Terry is getting nothing from the sale as the rest is going to the various mortgage holders. That hasn't been denied by him and seems plausible. Why would Terry sell in that situation unless he absolutely had to i.e. is being forced to by his lenders? That crystallises the loss.
This is not external funding because Terry receives nothing - I would have thought that was obvious. There is no cash coming into the group. What he needs is to refinance his obligations and increase his maturities - the fact that the only Lender willing to deal with him is WGA should say a lot.
james dean2011-07-13 21:25:17