Football stadium - Repaid 31/10/2017

The point I was trying to make is that while I (loosely) understand the reason for the forum rules and the reason the mods keep on saying you can't directly or indirectly say anything that links a thread to a borrower, it is just farcical the way it is enforced.

For example in this thread, saying you can not post a link to a newspaper article about a loan but being allowed to say the newspaper is called the Guardian which ran an article about the loan naming MT and the borrower on a specified date, which anyone with an internet connection can then freely access - if that isn't an indirect link then what is? IMO the censorship of the link in question is just being pedantic, it doesn't 'protect' against anything.  On this basis of censorship this board and the internet itself should not exist - after all it built on the foundations of discussion, information and links!

Another thing, this fear of defamation.  How can that be taken seriously when we have threads and comments (and there are hundreds and hundreds of examples) slagging off the P2P platforms? For example, the opening line in this FC thread p2pindependentforum.com/thread/7169/finantial-incompetence says that FC "are guilty of financial incompetence". There are way stronger examples than this . How come they are OK? In fact discussion of this nature is encouraged!  The P2P platforms are organisations, many of them large and soon to be listed companies. Could they not bring the legal action so many seem petrified of? 

Libel law is a very grey area - loads of stuff is actionable ie enough to prompt someone to send a warning letter and as many have posted here, there are loads of defences. 
Your example of FC 'financial incompetence' is unquestionably actionable ie could prompt a warning letter if FC was a bully, but could easily be defended as 'fair comment'. 
The real problem might come if someone said similar things about an individual eg the md was 'incompetent'. That starts to become less easy to defend.

Now what if board postings start to follow a theme as they have done recently eg 'when is xyz platform going to fail'? What if that platform did fail soon after some repeated negative comments on this board? A libel case could easily be constructed that the comments were vexatious and contributed to the collapse of the platform- ie an obvious loss demanding compo. That would be quite a tricky one to defend. Counterintuitively - a posting attacking a particular platform on this board is likely to have a far more damaging impact on that platform than similar comment say in The Times. Damages for niche industry publishers are easily as high as big circulation journals as if you libel someone in an industry journal that person is just about finished. This board has the power to easily sink individual loans and possibly sink platforms themselves.

etc etc etc. How are the voluntary mods supposed to handle all this in a real time basis, unpaid and unprotected from action, without choosing to be cautious?

Jack P

The revised second tranche has been announced and is on the pending loan list. If I understand correctly the total facility has been revised downwards, giving a seriously low LTV.

Does that LTV stack up though or is it a little 'hazy'? Personally this is one I've been keeping out of and I've not yet seen anything to convince me otherwise. MT have, imo, a well deserved solid reputation, I'm not sure that this one is helping the cause.

The risks to the valuation are actually set out quite clearly in the valuation document

And yes, they include reference to the clubs league position. Which has deteriorated quite significantly since the loan originated.

Thats why this loan isn't for me. If I want to bet on the future of a football club, I'll do it on betfair 

MoneyThing will all tranches rank equally and is the plan to eventually release the full 2.4m?

The LTV is obviously going to decrease, if this is the case, over time and later tranches are going to be much harder to fill and some people will exit as more as lent and the risk increases. Maybe a higher rate or CB is needed for later tranches?

This encapsulates my views very nicely. Add in the likelihood of supporters throwing in 'save our club' legal challenges and I don't see any prospect of getting planning permission or quick sales.