AFR article post BRTV creditors' meeting, page-50

lol. So what did the customers think, that they were getting a free video for nothing? Of cause they knew it was a "commercial transaction"!

The dodgy part, was that FC Capital was "willing" to lend. In other words, they wanted to lend money because they were benefiting so much. So BIG could say just about anything and funds would be advanced. That's why there are so many cases of customers getting subscriptions that they didn't think they had. Nobody asked questions, FC Capital just handed over money. All BIG had to do was have an invoice and address. This created a toxic environment.

Think of it this way. Imagine being really rich and having a good job. Banks will want to lend to you, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Think of the moral consequences of this. Getting lent money with no responsibility or consequences of your actions. That's basically what happened here. The relationship between BIG and FC Capital was just an arms length away, it was practically a partnership.

It's difficult to say exactly how many businesses actually committed to video packages. We'll probably never find out. What I know for sure, is that the finance arrangement was reckless and the business model didn't exist.

We've all seen the movie "The Big Short" right? You know the scene where the "dog" is revealed as an owner of a mortgage. Well, that's exactly what happened here, but the dog is a BIG customer.