Also, yes, we are biased, but guess what? so is everyone else, in one way or another, posting anywhere about SC/CIG/CR.
It's irrelevant in a very strong point, if we are to make a statement to claim that as proven information and not one's opinion and understanding of it, then we need someone who has no involvement to review the contract, the claims, and so clarify what it is or isn't.
I accept what I say about this isn't anything side of my opinion and so should everyone else because when it comes to legal matters what the internet says several times falls in opposites of reality, especially when discussing ongoing lawsuits.
Ok, sorry if this offend's, but what the hell did you just type? What does anything you just typed have to do with the part of my post you quoted? I am clicking that "wtf" and meaning it this time.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Why does a company that raised 150mil need the services of a bank to get a loan for a tax rebate? Because they are broke. This isn't rocket science people.
So you said it so it must be true?
The selective bias of all this is amazing, companies that do this sort of loans and complex setups to benefit from taxes, credits and currency fluctuations, especially Ubisoft allows them to save millions and millions. None of that is even a possibility because you said CIG is broke so CIG is broke. gg
This is just amazing... Keep attacking the fanboys this and that, you know you have no proof it is not the case.
A loan means CIG is broke = they take loans for years now so they were always broke, gg
Why does a company that raised 150mil need the services of a bank to get a loan for a tax rebate? Because they are broke. This isn't rocket science people. You don't go and pay a bank a fee to do this if you can just wait until the end of the year. Why would they just now be doing this? They didn't bother with it before probably because they had money in the bank and didn't need to. I swear the paid shills and fanboys on this site just suck up all the spin and repeat it like it is some kind of religious cult at this point.
Only a few are being like that; usually a sign of trouble among the troops. Some cognitive dissonance is to be expected.
However, I believe the bolded text speaks to the elephant in the room. Regardless of what Ortwin claims, why not simply wait for 5 million more in backer money to roll in? Having raised 150M, they had to know the exposure they would get from this. This was a strategic decision based on the good (immediate cash flow) outweighing the bad (negative press).
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Why does a company that raised 150mil need the services of a bank to get a loan for a tax rebate? Because they are broke. This isn't rocket science people.
So you said it so it must be true?
The selective bias of all this is amazing, companies that do this sort of loans and complex setups to benefit from taxes, credits and currency fluctuations, especially Ubisoft allows them to save millions and millions. None of that is even a possibility because you said CIG is broke so CIG is broke. gg
This is just amazing...
Are you a investment banker? Otherwise you can't comment on what is being said Max
However, I believe the bolded text speaks to the elephant in the room. Regardless of what Ortwin claims, why not simply wait for 5 million more in backer money to roll in? Having raised 150M, they had to know the exposure they would get from this. This was a strategic decision based on the good (immediate cash flow) outweighing the bad (negative press).
If you guys are defending CIG is lying, in one official statement...
So why don't you reach out the bank? Why don't you report the company for lying with their name on it about loan that is not what they said it was?
Why does a company that raised 150mil need the services of a bank to get a loan for a tax rebate? Because they are broke. This isn't rocket science people. You don't go and pay a bank a fee to do this if you can just wait until the end of the year. Why would they just now be doing this? They didn't bother with it before probably because they had money in the bank and didn't need to. I swear the paid shills and fanboys on this site just suck up all the spin and repeat it like it is some kind of religious cult at this point.
Only a few are being like that; usually a sign of trouble among the troops. Some cognitive dissonance is to be expected.
However, I believe the bolded text speaks to the elephant in the room. Regardless of what Ortwin claims, why not simply wait for 5 million more in backer money to roll in? Having raised 150M, they had to know the exposure they would get from this. This was a strategic decision based on the good (immediate cash flow) outweighing the bad (negative press).
I think at this point CIG doesn't really give 2 shits about negative press. They fuck up all the time and the backers easily forget and keep giving money so why wouldn't they go for the short term benefits when their backers will ignore the bad press with a little spin doctorong
Yes he is and he is perfectly allowed to do so. You are also making a STATEMENT on what it is, on an interpretation of a LEGAL DOCUMENT, see exhibit F.O-MAX below
"Contesting the ownership of SC assets and code wouldn't stick"
Unless you are a lawyer with thorough understanding of the intricacies involved in this loan agreement you are not allowed to make a STATEMENT on a subject covered in the LEGAL DOCUMENT.
I already claimed it is MY OPINION.
Nobody can claim this as fact until it can be done so, a war of opinions and even speculation over something won't settle as a fact. It's a very complex area, especially within legal matters where only professionals from a neutral standpoint could do a proper review, even so, it still requires speculation in how a situation would play out.
From legal terminology having different meanings in different areas to the law and regulations of each country, it's all things to consider to be able to accurately claim something.
Max the piece I quoted is not an opinion, that is a declarative statement. There is nothing in the original post to indicate it is an opinion. If it was an opinion it would need a prefix or suffix showing that it is an opinion. You would need to say something like "It is my belief that contesting the blah blah" or "Contesting the blah blah imho"
You know it is your opinion and that's what you are basing this on but the fact is the phrasing used marks it as a statement. Perhaps English as a second language is part of the problem here? I don't know.
I think at this point CIG doesn't really give 2 shits about negative press. They fuck up all the time and the backers easily forget and keep giving money so why wouldn't they go for the short term benefits when their backers will ignore the bad press with a little spin doctorong
Because it's not bad press any more that is haters blowing stuff out of proportion and trying to paint anything in the worse possible way. From low-level journalists already proclaiming the end of the project to people who love to hate and troll.
The backers know this, so it won't stop the support the game keeps getting. Most people can tell the difference between something to be legitimately worried about from fear monger, this is fear monger.
Max the piece I quoted is not an opinion, that is a declarative statement. There is nothing in the original post to indicate it is an opinion. If it was an opinion it would need a prefix or suffix showing that it is an opinion. You would need to say something like "It is my belief that contesting the blah blah" or "Contesting the blah blah imho"
I already posted and said it was so, if you wish to witch hunt me because of English not being my main language feel free to do so.
As so the opinion factor wasn't specified by any of the other opinions about this here as well.
Why does a company that raised 150mil need the services of a bank to get a loan for a tax rebate? Because they are broke. This isn't rocket science people. You don't go and pay a bank a fee to do this if you can just wait until the end of the year. Why would they just now be doing this? They didn't bother with it before probably because they had money in the bank and didn't need to. I swear the paid shills and fanboys on this site just suck up all the spin and repeat it like it is some kind of religious cult at this point.
Only a few are being like that; usually a sign of trouble among the troops. Some cognitive dissonance is to be expected.
However, I believe the bolded text speaks to the elephant in the room. Regardless of what Ortwin claims, why not simply wait for 5 million more in backer money to roll in? Having raised 150M, they had to know the exposure they would get from this. This was a strategic decision based on the good (immediate cash flow) outweighing the bad (negative press).
I think at this point CIG doesn't really give 2 shits about negative press. They fuck up all the time and the backers easily forget and keep giving money so why wouldn't they go for the short term benefits when their backers will ignore the bad press with a little spin doctorong
Quite simply, if they could afford not to.
Ortwin's reply, while it looks smart, doesn't address the question of why they need the cash. He only offers a (rather feeble) explanation of "simply a smart money management move". Okay, I can almost buy that. However, they had to know how this would look from the outside. After 150M, there's no way someone along the line didn't sit down and draw out an analysis. I wouldn't be surprised if Ortwin's reply had been drafted days in advance.
It looks like they've staked their entire company against a couple months of operating expenditure. That's not a move born out of luxury.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
I think at this point CIG doesn't really give 2 shits about negative press. They fuck up all the time and the backers easily forget and keep giving money so why wouldn't they go for the short term benefits when their backers will ignore the bad press with a little spin doctorong
Because it's not bad press any more that is haters blowing stuff out of proportion and trying to paint anything in the worse possible way. From low-level journalists already proclaiming the end of the project to people who love to hate and troll.
The backers know this, so it won't stop the support the game keeps getting. Most people can tell the difference between something to be legitimately worried about from fear monger, this is fear monger.
Guess we will see at the end of the year how their year over year compares to previous years and if it's lower or in the negative then perhaps the bad press is impacting backer confidence
Guess we will see at the end of the year how their year over year compares to previous years and if it's lower or in the negative then perhaps the bad press is impacting backer confidence
But I thought the funding chart could not be trusted...
Guess we will see at the end of the year how their year over year compares to previous years and if it's lower or in the negative then perhaps the bad press is impacting backer confidence
But I thought the funding chart could not be trusted...
I'm pretty sure I've never said that and Derek Smart did. Besides it's the only metric for money raised so it's what's used
Phaserlight said: However, they had to know how this would look from the outside. After 150M, there's no way someone along the line didn't sit down and draw out an analysis. I wouldn't be surprised if Ortwin's reply had been drafted days in advance.
It looks like they've staked their entire company against a couple months of operating expenditure. That's not a move born out of luxury.
This is a non-issue because this is business matters, only that papers got filled and as we know some people are so desperate to new material they literally F5 the government page. This is not their entire company and it's obvious, the deal is between CIG UK, FQ42 UK, and the bank, the company that withholds the wealth should be CIG International.
idk why is it so hard to understand, especially within the reality of the Brexit because is their biggest studio, they earn mostly in EUR/USD and the GBP is starting to rebound.
Guess we will see at the end of the year how their year over year compares to previous years and if it's lower or in the negative then perhaps the bad press is impacting backer confidence
Star Citizen been through its biggest melodramatic bad media with its supposed "imminent collapse" back in 2015, it did just fine. Shows no press is bad press after all.
Phaserlight said: However, they had to know how this would look from the outside. After 150M, there's no way someone along the line didn't sit down and draw out an analysis. I wouldn't be surprised if Ortwin's reply had been drafted days in advance.
It looks like they've staked their entire company against a couple months of operating expenditure. That's not a move born out of luxury.
This is a non-issue because this is business matters, only that papers got filled and as we know some people are so desperate to new material they literally F5 the government page. This is not their entire company and it's obvious, the deal is between CIG UK, FQ42 UK, and the bank, the company that withholds the wealth should be CIG International.
idk why is it so hard to understand, especially within the reality of the Brexit because is their biggest studio, they earn mostly in EUR/USD and the GBP is starting to rebound.
Guess we will see at the end of the year how their year over year compares to previous years and if it's lower or in the negative then perhaps the bad press is impacting backer confidence
Star Citizen been through its biggest melodramatic bad media with its supposed "imminent collapse" back in 2015, it did just fine. Shows no press is bad press after all.
And thanks to the "bad press" the number of people searching and checking star citizen peaks, so it always has the both sides of the coin.
As usual, you are splitting hairs.
I'm actually on board with the idea that it's probably nothing to get excited over, but the mental gymnastics on display ITT have got me rather bothered. That the white knights are trying to spin this as somehow a good thing is just... irritating.
I mean, will CIG (F42 whatever, I can hardly keep track of all the companies in Roberts' conglomerate) really be remembered as the company that crowdfunded so hard and successfully they had to take out a 5M loan in 2017??
Furthermore, are we just taking Ortwin's word that the winds of trade are just so that this year necessitates borrowing in advance as a form of "smart money management"? Has anyone bothered to fact-check his statement?
What about 2016? 2015? Why didn't CIG pull this stunt every year up until now?
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Phaserlight said: However, they had to know how this would look from the outside. After 150M, there's no way someone along the line didn't sit down and draw out an analysis. I wouldn't be surprised if Ortwin's reply had been drafted days in advance.
It looks like they've staked their entire company against a couple months of operating expenditure. That's not a move born out of luxury.
This is a non-issue because this is business matters, only that papers got filled and as we know some people are so desperate to new material they literally F5 the government page. This is not their entire company and it's obvious, the deal is between CIG UK, FQ42 UK, and the bank, the company that withholds the wealth should be CIG International.
idk why is it so hard to understand, especially within the reality of the Brexit because is their biggest studio, they earn mostly in EUR/USD and the GBP is starting to rebound.
Is this your opinion? or are you making these statement's as fact's?
Is it really a non-issue?
What is the reality of Brexit?
Inquiring mind's want to know.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
I'm actually on board with the idea that it's probably nothing to get excited over, but the mental gymnastics on display ITT have got me rather bothered. That the white knights are trying to spin this as somehow a good thing is just... irritating.
I mean, will CIG (F42 whatever, I can hardly keep track of all the companies in Roberts' conglomerate) really be remembered as the company that crowdfunded so hard and successfully they had to take out a 5M loan in 2017??
Furthermore, are we just taking Ortwin's word that the winds of trade are just so that this year necessitates borrowing in advance as a form of "smart money management"? Has anyone bothered to fact-check his statement?
What about 2016? 2015? Why didn't CIG pull this stunt every year up until now?
And why are you trying to spin it as such a bad thing?
Do you know it for a matter of fact that they are lying and they are broke and desperate?
If you want fact-checks, just look at the setup of the company, or read about Ubisoft's setup and you'll see the whole complex, many companies is all to do smart money management, getting as many credits as possible, tax reductions and ease on having to deal and move multiple currencies. They do smart money management and we already knew it.
Phaserlight said: However, they had to know how this would look from the outside. After 150M, there's no way someone along the line didn't sit down and draw out an analysis. I wouldn't be surprised if Ortwin's reply had been drafted days in advance.
It looks like they've staked their entire company against a couple months of operating expenditure. That's not a move born out of luxury.
This is a non-issue because this is business matters, only that papers got filled and as we know some people are so desperate to new material they literally F5 the government page. This is not their entire company and it's obvious, the deal is between CIG UK, FQ42 UK, and the bank, the company that withholds the wealth should be CIG International.
idk why is it so hard to understand, especially within the reality of the Brexit because is their biggest studio, they earn mostly in EUR/USD and the GBP is starting to rebound.
Guess we will see at the end of the year how their year over year compares to previous years and if it's lower or in the negative then perhaps the bad press is impacting backer confidence
Star Citizen been through its biggest melodramatic bad media with its supposed "imminent collapse" back in 2015, it did just fine. Shows no press is bad press after all.
And thanks to the "bad press" the number of people searching and checking star citizen peaks, so it always has the both sides of the coin.
"As we know people are desperate to new material they F5 the government page."
There you go making statements as fact fact when you have been arguing for however many pages that no one is qualified to be making factual statements without proper evidence.
"Star Citizen been through its biggest melodramatic bad media with its supposed "imminent collapse" back in 2015, it did just fine. Shows no press is bad press after all."
Except if you look look at the year over year that I had posted On page 2 you would see that the money train is slowing down from the time the kickstarter ended to now with 2016 being a measly 0.27% increase from 2015(measly in the sense of growth and not total amount raised).
And I really do hate that expression that no press is bad press. Go talk to blue bell creameries after the press published that they had killed a few people with listeria contamination of their products and I'm sure all those workers out of a job are chanting the mantra no press is bad press!
I'm actually on board with the idea that it's probably nothing to get excited over, but the mental gymnastics on display ITT have got me rather bothered. That the white knights are trying to spin this as somehow a good thing is just... irritating.
I mean, will CIG (F42 whatever, I can hardly keep track of all the companies in Roberts' conglomerate) really be remembered as the company that crowdfunded so hard and successfully they had to take out a 5M loan in 2017??
Furthermore, are we just taking Ortwin's word that the winds of trade are just so that this year necessitates borrowing in advance as a form of "smart money management"? Has anyone bothered to fact-check his statement?
What about 2016? 2015? Why didn't CIG pull this stunt every year up until now?
And why are you trying to spin it as such a bad thing?
Do you know it for a matter of fact that they are lying and they are broke and desperate?
If you want fact-checks, just look at the setup of the company, or read about Ubisoft's setup and you'll see the whole complex, many companies is all to do smart money management, getting as many credits as possible, tax reductions and ease on having to deal and move multiple currencies. They do smart money management and we already knew it.
I never accused CIG of lying; don't put words in my mouth. Neither am I trying to spin this as a bad thing: that's obviously how you are taking such questions as the ones I've asked.
I'm well aware of the concepts behind smart money management. I was asking very simply if anyone had bothered fact-checking Ortwin's statement or if it was being accepted as gospel truth.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Guess we will see at the end of the year how their year over year compares to previous years and if it's lower or in the negative then perhaps the bad press is impacting backer confidence
Star Citizen been through its biggest melodramatic bad media with its supposed "imminent collapse" back in 2015, it did just fine. Shows no press is bad press after all.
And thanks to the "bad press" the number of people searching and checking star citizen peaks, so it always has the both sides of the coin.
How are you getting that output? - Output displays this way from only using a single search term. Only really shows much difference when 2 products are compared.
Phaserlight said: I was asking very simply if anyone had bothered fact-checking Ortwin's statement or if it was being accepted as gospel truth.
If this is such a big deal for some they can reach out the bank. Or as I said, even report the company for lying about a loan they made them (one or both ways), what would be a crime.
Comments
What does anything you just typed have to do with the part of my post you quoted?
I am clicking that "wtf" and meaning it this time.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
The selective bias of all this is amazing, companies that do this sort of loans and complex setups to benefit from taxes, credits and currency fluctuations, especially Ubisoft allows them to save millions and millions. None of that is even a possibility because you said CIG is broke so CIG is broke. gg
This is just amazing... Keep attacking the fanboys this and that, you know you have no proof it is not the case.
A loan means CIG is broke = they take loans for years now so they were always broke, gg
However, I believe the bolded text speaks to the elephant in the room. Regardless of what Ortwin claims, why not simply wait for 5 million more in backer money to roll in? Having raised 150M, they had to know the exposure they would get from this. This was a strategic decision based on the good (immediate cash flow) outweighing the bad (negative press).
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Is he?
So why don't you reach out the bank? Why don't you report the company for lying with their name on it about loan that is not what they said it was?
Max the piece I quoted is not an opinion, that is a declarative statement. There is nothing in the original post to indicate it is an opinion. If it was an opinion it would need a prefix or suffix showing that it is an opinion.
You would need to say something like "It is my belief that contesting the blah blah" or "Contesting the blah blah imho"
You know it is your opinion and that's what you are basing this on but the fact is the phrasing used marks it as a statement. Perhaps English as a second language is part of the problem here? I don't know.
The backers know this, so it won't stop the support the game keeps getting. Most people can tell the difference between something to be legitimately worried about from fear monger, this is fear monger.
As so the opinion factor wasn't specified by any of the other opinions about this here as well.
Ortwin's reply, while it looks smart, doesn't address the question of why they need the cash. He only offers a (rather feeble) explanation of "simply a smart money management move". Okay, I can almost buy that. However, they had to know how this would look from the outside. After 150M, there's no way someone along the line didn't sit down and draw out an analysis. I wouldn't be surprised if Ortwin's reply had been drafted days in advance.
It looks like they've staked their entire company against a couple months of operating expenditure. That's not a move born out of luxury.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
idk why is it so hard to understand, especially within the reality of the Brexit because is their biggest studio, they earn mostly in EUR/USD and the GBP is starting to rebound.
Star Citizen been through its biggest melodramatic bad media with its supposed "imminent collapse" back in 2015, it did just fine. Shows no press is bad press after all.
Also made Star Citizen be in trending in Google today: https://i.redd.it/ykda59slzz5z.png
And thanks to the "bad press" the number of people searching and checking star citizen peaks, so it always has the both sides of the coin.
I'm actually on board with the idea that it's probably nothing to get excited over, but the mental gymnastics on display ITT have got me rather bothered. That the white knights are trying to spin this as somehow a good thing is just... irritating.
I mean, will CIG (F42 whatever, I can hardly keep track of all the companies in Roberts' conglomerate) really be remembered as the company that crowdfunded so hard and successfully they had to take out a 5M loan in 2017??
Furthermore, are we just taking Ortwin's word that the winds of trade are just so that this year necessitates borrowing in advance as a form of "smart money management"? Has anyone bothered to fact-check his statement?
What about 2016? 2015? Why didn't CIG pull this stunt every year up until now?
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Is it really a non-issue?
What is the reality of Brexit?
Inquiring mind's want to know.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Do you know it for a matter of fact that they are lying and they are broke and desperate?
If you want fact-checks, just look at the setup of the company, or read about Ubisoft's setup and you'll see the whole complex, many companies is all to do smart money management, getting as many credits as possible, tax reductions and ease on having to deal and move multiple currencies. They do smart money management and we already knew it.
>>>
UK does not leave the European Union every year.
Pound sterling does not hiccup every year too.
--> not every year such a monetary transaction and loan makes economic sense
Have fun
There you go making statements as fact fact when you have been arguing for however many pages that no one is qualified to be making factual statements without proper evidence.
"Star Citizen been through its biggest melodramatic bad media with its supposed "imminent collapse" back in 2015, it did just fine. Shows no press is bad press after all."
Except if you look look at the year over year that I had posted On page 2 you would see that the money train is slowing down from the time the kickstarter ended to now with 2016 being a measly 0.27% increase from 2015(measly in the sense of growth and not total amount raised).
And I really do hate that expression that no press is bad press. Go talk to blue bell creameries after the press published that they had killed a few people with listeria contamination of their products and I'm sure all those workers out of a job are chanting the mantra no press is bad press!
I'm well aware of the concepts behind smart money management. I was asking very simply if anyone had bothered fact-checking Ortwin's statement or if it was being accepted as gospel truth.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
How are you getting that output? - Output displays this way from only using a single search term. Only really shows much difference when 2 products are compared.
Apology to Max for the assumption.
There are big financial discussions on how the company might be doing things when it comes to money if you want to read: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6jgcw3/clarification_on_cig_loan/?sort=top
If this is such a big deal for some they can reach out the bank. Or as I said, even report the company for lying about a loan they made them (one or both ways), what would be a crime.