What really matter's is why did they need a loan in the first place? what changed?
CR has stated many times, that they have plenty of money to make the game, they have cash reserve's, and could complete the game if funding stopped.
The pace of development is determined by how much money they have on a month to month basis, again, according to CR.
So why the loan?
They cannot be doing that well financially, as the bank placed a floating charge, a fixed charge, and applied a negative pledge.
The worst part is, if they do not repay the loan, or become insolvent, the bank would get money back, preferential creditor's would get money (that would be staff, they would get any wages owed), and unsecured creditor's get nothing.
Unsecured creditor's are the people who have paid pledges.
You don't even know that. This is narratives built over speculation over speculation over speculation over something there's no context on, neither the status of the company, neither the reasons, neither the values, neither the length.
And then go already building one worse-case scenario fear mongering narrative where CIG fails to pay and bank gets everything and SC is all over and RIP, the apocalypse!
It's all useless speculation, if CIG so decides to react in the light of this events and clarify this so be it, until then, any of us would be speaking of what we don't know.
Yeah but a publisher won't kick you out of your building and sell everything to whoever wants it if you don't release a game on time.
There's a clause that states the chargee grants the chargor exclusive rights to develop, produce, exploit and deal with the game. If the chargor defaults then they no longer have the license which means no working on the game. That doesn't sound like something a publisher would do
That's irrelevant, they stand no right on the company whatsoever if the loan keeps being paid back. Just like a house mortgage...
But I don't need a mortgage if I have enough money
If you have enough money your better off taking that mortgage and investing the rest of your money into a higher yield interest account so you are making money if your whole goal is to make more money.
You are not waiving ownership, you put ownership in a lien against a debt, as said.
That logic is utterly ridiculous, I go rent a house and you are my bailee in the contract by no means the bank owns your money, only if I fail with paying my rent.
This is clearly a war of opinions until there is a proper professional lawyer or banker clarifying this. Was talking someone says to work as a banker for 20 years now that clearly refutes the claim the bank owns anything here without payment failure.
If a bank is granting you permission to work on your own game then you do not have full rights over that game. It is as simple as that.
Yes I saw someone claiming 20 years experience and they didn't even understand the interest breakdown as described in the document. Perhaps they have 20 years experience as mail boy in an insurance office or some crap. People claiming this sort of experience should only get /eyeroll, if you are trusting someone purely because their argument supports your argument then....
If a bank is granting you permission to work on your own game then you do not have full rights over that game. It is as simple as that.
That would have to be defined in the contract, that term does not imply they wouldn't have the permission if that term was not there. Neither there is any specification in the contract that enforces it. That is not a default for loans.
Yes I saw someone claiming 20 years experience and they didn't even understand the interest breakdown as described in the document. Perhaps they have 20 years experience as mail boy in an insurance office or some crap. People claiming this sort of experience should only get /eyeroll, if you are trusting someone purely because their argument supports your argument then....
Do you have more experience or something? It's likely that professionals around will end up reviewing this and post on more in-depth analysis and clarification, then yes we'll get proper information.
But I don't need a mortgage if I have enough money
If you have enough money your better off taking that mortgage and investing the rest of your money into a higher yield interest account so you are making money if your whole goal is to make more money.
True words.
There are many good and smart reasons for a company to get a loan (thy internet provides!), especially during periods when interest rates are very low.
Lol by now this is just another episode of the "90 days top" summer FUD campaign lol.
Every summer before Gamescom and Citizencom (Star Citizen events that generate a lot of funding) we have the usual smartie trolls picking any news and exagerating them into a scandal that will take CIG into the impending doom, lol, just lol.
But the most amusing part is that this raises awareness to Star Citizen and tends to unite the backers even more which then generates even more funding for CIG lol
Ortwin Freyermuth online in Spectrum in a Sunday (he is never on)... the studio is supposedly closed today but several CIG heads are coming up online, I'd say they are working on reacting to this whole loan situation soon.
If a bank is granting you permission to work on your own game then you do not have full rights over that game. It is as simple as that.
That would have to be defined in the contract, that term does not imply they wouldn't have the permission if that term was not there. Neither there is any specification in the contract that enforces it. That is not a default for loans.
It is defined in the contract and this has been included in various posts already. Can we stop with the hunting for every little possible objection to avoid what is plain as day. I don't know why you have your pants in such a wad over this. As it stands it is of absolutely no significance unless CIG default on the loan.
Do you have more experience or something? It's likely that professionals around will end up reviewing this and post on more in-depth analysis and clarification, then yes we'll get proper information.
I don't have to, I'm going to wait until people who are professionals in this area do a proper understanding of this, or until/if CIG comes to public and explains it themselves.
Too many opinions going around, complete opposites claims over people who claim knowledge of this, so I will wait and see.
"We have noticed the speculations created by a posting on the website of UK’s Company House with respect to Coutt’s security for our UK Tax Rebate advance, and we would like to provide you with the following insight to help prevent some of the misinformation we have seen.
Our UK companies are entitled to a Government Game tax credit rebate which we earn every month on the Squadron 42 development. These rebates are payable by the UK Government in the fall of the next following year when we file our tax returns. Foundry 42 and its parent company Cloud Imperium Games UK Ltd. have elected to partner with Coutts, a highly regarded, very selective, and specialized UK banking institution, to obtain a regular advance against this rebate, which will allow us to avoid converting unnecessarily other currencies into GBP. We obviously incur a significant part of our expenditures in GBP while our collections are mostly in USD and EUR. Given today's low interest rates versus the ongoing and uncertain currency fluctuations, this is simply a smart money management move, which we implemented upon recommendation of our financial advisors.
The collateral granted in connection with this discounting loan is absolutely standard and pertains to our UK operation only, which develops Squadron 42. As a careful review of the security will show and contrary to some irresponsible and misleading reports, the collateral specifically excludes “Star Citizen.” The UK Government rebate entitlement, which is audited and certified by our outside auditors on a quarterly basis, is the prime collateral. Per standard procedure in banking, our UK companies of course stand behind the loan and guarantee repayment which, however, given the reliability of the discounted asset (a UK Government payment) is a formality and nothing else. This security does not affect our UK companies’ ownership and control of their assets. Obviously, the UK Government will not default on its rebate obligations which will be used for repayment, and even then the UK companies have ample assets to repay the loan, even in such an eventuality which is of course unthinkable.
I don't have to, I'm going to wait until people who are professionals in this area do a proper understanding of this, or until/if CIG comes to public and explains it themselves.
Too many opinions going around, complete opposites claims over people who claim knowledge of this, so I will wait and see.
And what will happen if the professional gives a conclusion that is different than the one you want, then it'll be a case of they work in X type of law so they don't qualify or they said this and that's not right etc. I remember fans responses to Ken White of Popehat.
Would you really trust CIG to be clear about the terms of this? Look at SotA and how their search for investors was presented, look at Roberts saying 3.0 by end of year, end of LTI and so on.
Which then means they will be breaking a promise that funds will only go towards game dev if they are paying off loans with backer money.
Does it even matter?
It's trading money for money, they get 5 million from the bank to put in SC, they repay 5 million from backers to the bank.
Either way 5 million end up put towards the game dev, that is what matters, they are getting the money up front.
They get 5 million they pay more than 5 million. It takes money out of the game unless they can capitalize on the loan and earn more from the 5 million than the interest they had to pay.
If the capital is used to push the product out sooner or ensure more of a return great, if not then the bank gets interest and the backers get ?
Which then means they will be breaking a promise that funds will only go towards game dev if they are paying off loans with backer money.
Does it even matter?
It's trading money for money, they get 5 million from the bank to put in SC, they repay 5 million from backers to the bank.
Either way 5 million end up put towards the game dev, that is what matters, they are getting the money up front.
They get 5 million they pay more than 5 million. It takes money out of the game unless they can capitalize on the loan and earn more from the 5 million than the interest they had to pay.
If the capital is used to push the product out sooner or ensure more of a return great, if not then the bank gets interest and the backers get ?
Which then means they will be breaking a promise that funds will only go towards game dev if they are paying off loans with backer money.
Does it even matter?
It's trading money for money, they get 5 million from the bank to put in SC, they repay 5 million from backers to the bank.
Either way 5 million end up put towards the game dev, that is what matters, they are getting the money up front.
They get 5 million they pay more than 5 million. It takes money out of the game unless they can capitalize on the loan and earn more from the 5 million than the interest they had to pay.
If the capital is used to push the product out sooner or ensure more of a return great, if not then the bank gets interest and the backers get ?
Yeah but a publisher won't kick you out of your building and sell everything to whoever wants it if you don't release a game on time.
There's a clause that states the chargee grants the chargor exclusive rights to develop, produce, exploit and deal with the game. If the chargor defaults then they no longer have the license which means no working on the game. That doesn't sound like something a publisher would do
That's irrelevant, they stand no right on the company whatsoever if the loan keeps being paid back. Just like a house mortgage...
But I don't need a mortgage if I have enough money
If you have enough money your better off taking that mortgage and investing the rest of your money into a higher yield interest account so you are making money if your whole goal is to make more money.
Now the question is what will they do that provides them more return from this loan than the interest they will be paying out?
What really matter's is why did they need a loan in the first place? what changed?
CR has stated many times, that they have plenty of money to make the game, they have cash reserve's, and could complete the game if funding stopped.
The pace of development is determined by how much money they have on a month to month basis, again, according to CR.
So why the loan?
They cannot be doing that well financially, as the bank placed a floating charge, a fixed charge, and applied a negative pledge.
The worst part is, if they do not repay the loan, or become insolvent, the bank would get money back, preferential creditor's would get money (that would be staff, they would get any wages owed), and unsecured creditor's get nothing.
Unsecured creditor's are the people who have paid pledges.
You don't even know that.
Well, the part about CR is true. Taking that into account, the only reason to take a loan is due to not having enough cash/capital for something they want/need, so saying they cannot be doing that well financially is not a stretch.
It is also correct about creditor's.
So what, exactly, do I not know?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
I mean I guess some people deserve that one because look at how far speculation went over something like this, we were already talking of CIG being owned by a bank and shutting down due being unable to pay, etc...
Yet they are simply having these complex setups to do what the Ubisoft does all the time, save a lot of money from government credits, taxes, etc... and we already knew CIG does this with their complex company setup (also like Ubisoft's).
Comments
And then go already building one worse-case scenario fear mongering narrative where CIG fails to pay and bank gets everything and SC is all over and RIP, the apocalypse!
It's all useless speculation, if CIG so decides to react in the light of this events and clarify this so be it, until then, any of us would be speaking of what we don't know.
If a bank is granting you permission to work on your own game then you do not have full rights over that game. It is as simple as that.
Yes I saw someone claiming 20 years experience and they didn't even understand the interest breakdown as described in the document. Perhaps they have 20 years experience as mail boy in an insurance office or some crap.
People claiming this sort of experience should only get /eyeroll, if you are trusting someone purely because their argument supports your argument then....
I know. It just sounded funny in an ironic way considering they have been getting money upfront since the start of the project.
Do you have more experience or something? It's likely that professionals around will end up reviewing this and post on more in-depth analysis and clarification, then yes we'll get proper information.
There are many good and smart reasons for a company to get a loan (thy internet provides!), especially during periods when interest rates are very low.
Have fun
Every summer before Gamescom and Citizencom (Star Citizen events that generate a lot of funding) we have the usual smartie trolls picking any news and exagerating them into a scandal that will take CIG into the impending doom, lol, just lol.
But the most amusing part is that this raises awareness to Star Citizen and tends to unite the backers even more which then generates even more funding for CIG lol
Ortwin Freyermuth online in Spectrum in a Sunday (he is never on)... the studio is supposedly closed today but several CIG heads are coming up online, I'd say they are working on reacting to this whole loan situation soon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_(finance)
Have fun
As it stands it is of absolutely no significance unless CIG default on the loan.
You're going to have to try better than that...
Too many opinions going around, complete opposites claims over people who claim knowledge of this, so I will wait and see.
CIG clarifies the UK Loan situation in a message from Ortwin Freyermuth
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/1/thread/re-uk-tax-rebate-advance-for-foundry-42
"We have noticed the speculations created by a posting on the website of UK’s Company House with respect to Coutt’s security for our UK Tax Rebate advance, and we would like to provide you with the following insight to help prevent some of the misinformation we have seen.
Our UK companies are entitled to a Government Game tax credit rebate which we earn every month on the Squadron 42 development. These rebates are payable by the UK Government in the fall of the next following year when we file our tax returns. Foundry 42 and its parent company Cloud Imperium Games UK Ltd. have elected to partner with Coutts, a highly regarded, very selective, and specialized UK banking institution, to obtain a regular advance against this rebate, which will allow us to avoid converting unnecessarily other currencies into GBP. We obviously incur a significant part of our expenditures in GBP while our collections are mostly in USD and EUR. Given today's low interest rates versus the ongoing and uncertain currency fluctuations, this is simply a smart money management move, which we implemented upon recommendation of our financial advisors.
The collateral granted in connection with this discounting loan is absolutely standard and pertains to our UK operation only, which develops Squadron 42. As a careful review of the security will show and contrary to some irresponsible and misleading reports, the collateral specifically excludes “Star Citizen.” The UK Government rebate entitlement, which is audited and certified by our outside auditors on a quarterly basis, is the prime collateral. Per standard procedure in banking, our UK companies of course stand behind the loan and guarantee repayment which, however, given the reliability of the discounted asset (a UK Government payment) is a formality and nothing else. This security does not affect our UK companies’ ownership and control of their assets. Obviously, the UK Government will not default on its rebate obligations which will be used for repayment, and even then the UK companies have ample assets to repay the loan, even in such an eventuality which is of course unthinkable.
This should clarify the matter. Thank you. "
Have fun
gg
Would you really trust CIG to be clear about the terms of this? Look at SotA and how their search for investors was presented, look at Roberts saying 3.0 by end of year, end of LTI and so on.
If the capital is used to push the product out sooner or ensure more of a return great, if not then the bank gets interest and the backers get ?
An announcement was just made about this.
The loan is an UK Tax Rebate advance.
See upthread.
Have fun
Well, the part about CR is true.
Taking that into account, the only reason to take a loan is due to not having enough cash/capital for something they want/need, so saying they cannot be doing that well financially is not a stretch.
It is also correct about creditor's.
So what, exactly, do I not know?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
(UK Tax Rebate for gaming companies ... that was the reason CIG started their UK Foundry 42 branch).
Have fun
Yet they are simply having these complex setups to do what the Ubisoft does all the time, save a lot of money from government credits, taxes, etc... and we already knew CIG does this with their complex company setup (also like Ubisoft's).
--'
..Cake..