Beware the Ides of March

boltonbonce wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes I agree, he just argues for the sake of it.

We all know that by now.

Well, I'll have to go. The cops are kicking the door in again.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:What do you mean why mention it? How else do you explain to readers why the players stopped getting paid?

Are you for real - that is the whole point that is being made!

The CLUB pays the wages NOT Anderson.

Iles states ANDERSON WITHDREW HIS funding for the players wages.

Anderson was never responsible for the wages - the CLUB was!

The players stopped getting paid because the CLUB ran out of money and NOT because Anderson withdrew HIS FUNDING of them.

The clear implication being that the players (and club employees) weren't being paid because Anderson had decided not to pay them anymore even though he had personal wealth to do so.

I'm afraid I despair of it all, Sluffy. These people are not interested in the truth or the facts but only interested in suppressing it and making any feeble excuse they can think of for their conduct.

I hope it will change but I doubt it will. Its gone too far, way too far and there seems to be a collective mendacity every bit as contagious as corona virus.

Times have change Bob.

Wumming (as TROY is doing once again to me right now) and an acceptance from the younger generations to swallow anything on social media without question, together with abusive behaviour towards anyone who disagrees with them is now the norm.

People seem to let others do their thinking for them.

I found this very interesting and revealing of why that seems to be the case and well worth a read if you haven't seen it before -

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It is now us that are the odd bods, the ones who are out of step with the rest.

It's no longer our time.

If people want to live in ignorance and believe fake news, then it's up to them.

I'm happy enough to just say my peace and if people don't want to listen to it, then I won't lose any sleep over it.

I do this for my own amusement and distraction from real life, it seems to me though that real life to many these days is living their lives via their smart phones, tablets and social media - and thus leaving themselves wide-open to being manipulated and led.

The die has been cast and there is no going back.

Maybe Eric Blair had it right after all!

Thanks Sluffy. It means a lot to encounter at least one person on social media who is willing to think for themselves. I don't expect we are alone in trying to figure things out but I do suspect that there are lots who gave up the fight long ago.

Yes, Eric Blair was right about a lot of things and I'm pretty sure I'd got that message by the time I was sixteen.

But briefly back to the saviour of the planet. I don't know why I would think that he might have narcissistic tendencies but he does seem to like having his photo taken more often than the Kardashians. Don't you think it interesting, though, that he has avoided putting his personal seal of approval on the Annual Reports and Audited Accounts (AR) of the Ecotricity Group since 2013? It is his company.

Might it have something to do with deflecting attention from himself if it all goes pear-shaped?

''It wasn't me, Gov, I didn't sign any of that stuff off. I relied on others to do that. It was their job"

The short straw went to Asif Rehmanwala this year. He's the COO and the longest serving director after Mr & Mrs Vince but he hasn't signed the AR previously. I can't help wonder if the departed Mr Crowfoot declined. There weren't too many options if the planet saviour didn't fancy it

In 2017 it was Karyn Coombes. She'd been a director for less than three months when she was asked to sign the AR and she'd gone within the year.

Similar thing in 2018. Eric Staples had been with the company for just a year but six months after he'd signed the AR he'd gone.

If interested, take a look at the notes at the bottom of page 35 and top of page 36 then go figure  what the balance sheet would like without the 2013 revaluation. Haven't we learned from Bolton Wanderers that assets that don't yield a profit might not be worth what the books say they are worth?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Its a shame that Boncey doesn't concentrate enough because if he's interested in Watergate there's a lot more of interest closer to home.

I had a quick look at what a former FD of Ecotricity and FGR was doing now and found him on Linkedin. There's some interesting stuff in what he says he dealt with at Ecotricity e.g.

Spent 6 years working to bring issues with HMRC relating to earlier years to a satisfactory conclusion.

Structured/implemented purchase of company shares from shareholder to clear Director Loan a/c.


The £250K paid to Dean Holdsworth and £150K paid to Quantuma (Sports Shield's liquidator) would have been a directors loan issue with HMRC if Ken Anderson hadn't cleared them only to be damned for doing so. But the directors loan figures in Ecotricity were and are a lot bigger than £400K.

Er, I don't think I've ever mentioned Watergate on here, but never mind. I'm sorry if my levels of concentration aren't up to scratch, but I have a lot to deal with. Hiding my google search history is almost a full time job.
We're not deliberately pushing all your buttons Bob, we're simply looking for the mute button.

Reign in the patronising attitude Ten bob before you upset anyone else on here. And again no one cares about your obsession with Dale Vince.

boltonbonce wrote:Er, I don't think I've ever mentioned Watergate on here, but never mind. I'm sorry if my levels of concentration aren't up to scratch, but I have a lot to deal with. Hiding my google search history is almost a full time job.
We're not deliberately pushing all your buttons Bob, we're simply looking for the mute button.

Sorry, Boncey, but I'm not having it that somebody who mentions Woodward and Bernstein has never had any interest in Watergate. My apologies if it wasn't you.

I'm sure we've all been schmucks over something in our lives but this affair has been poisonous schmuckery on a grand scale and I think you can do better than join in with any of the childish bleatings and evasions of those who want to pretend it never happened or should be forgotten.

I have an interest in politics in general Bob, but watergate hasn't really been mentioned a lot on here. 
As for Ken Anderson, nothing tells me he broke the law. Until anyone proves otherwise I'll go with that.
He was however disqualified from being a company director for 8 years.
Could you enlighten me as to why?

Jesus Boncey stop encouraging him! 

Norpig wrote:Jesus Boncey stop encouraging him! 

Everyone needs a hobby.

boltonbonce wrote:I have an interest in politics in general Bob, but watergate hasn't really been mentioned a lot on here. 
As for Ken Anderson, nothing tells me he broke the law. Until anyone proves otherwise I'll go with that.
He was however disqualified from being a company director for 8 years.
Could you enlighten me as to why?

All I know about the case is hearsay but I suspect he got caught bending the rules in his favour and, because he was a professionally qualified individual and wouldn't co-operate with the Official Receiver, they took him to the cleaners.

Lots of folk bend the rules and get away with it but there are now a lot of disqualified directors. 11 pages of them with surnames beginning with A alone.

I expect he was a lot more careful when taking over at BWFC. If I'd seen evidence that he'd been up to no good you can guarantee that I wouldn't have been turning a blind eye.

He was at personal risk in relation to the money he borrowed from ED to keep the club going and took steps to protect his family from those risks in February last year. He's now reversed those steps which tends to indicate to me he's in the clear on all fronts.

The accounts of Boulestin are due out this month. I'll be taking a look when they are published but I'm expecting to see borrowings and little, if any, profit.

He was found guilty of diverting funds
receivable by a company into personal accounts, VAT discrepancies, and failure
to cooperate with Receivers.

boltonbonce wrote:He was found guilty of diverting funds
receivable by a company into personal accounts, VAT discrepancies, and failure
to cooperate with Receivers.

Do you have proof of this Bonce?

karlypants wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:He was found guilty of diverting funds
receivable by a company into personal accounts, VAT discrepancies, and failure
to cooperate with Receivers.

Do you have proof of this Bonce?

It's in the records of the Insolvency Service. The reasons for his ban are well known.
He bent the rules, as many do. No sign that he was guilty of this at Bolton so far as I know.

I should add, when he came to the Wanderers he'd served his ban, and I had no problem with letting him take the helm. 
I'm just glad he's gone, and I wish we could stop talking about him. I certainly won't be mentioning him again.

Who?

Cajunboy wrote:Who?

Thingy.

boltonbonce wrote:I should add, when he came to the Wanderers he'd served his ban, and I had no problem with letting him take the helm. 
I'm just glad he's gone, and I wish we could stop talking about him. I certainly won't be mentioning him again.

I'd no problem with him appointing Phil Parkinson and challenging some of the inherited contracts that were not in the best interests of the club.

I'd no problem with him negotiating with the EFL to alleviate some of the restrictions that might have prevented the club securing promotion to the Championship or maintaining its position for another year.

I'd no problem with him saving a million quid in Blumarble's interest charges or persuading Cardiff City to part with £6m for Gary Madine.

And I'd no problem with him treating Marc Iles and the ST with the contempt they deserved or telling Dale Vince were to get off when he threatened to liquidate a founder member of the Football League.

Sorry, who were we talking about?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:What do you mean why mention it? How else do you explain to readers why the players stopped getting paid?

Are you for real - that is the whole point that is being made!

The CLUB pays the wages NOT Anderson.

Iles states ANDERSON WITHDREW HIS funding for the players wages.

Anderson was never responsible for the wages - the CLUB was!

The players stopped getting paid because the CLUB ran out of money and NOT because Anderson withdrew HIS FUNDING of them.

The clear implication being that the players (and club employees) weren't being paid because Anderson had decided not to pay them anymore even though he had personal wealth to do so.

I'm afraid I despair of it all, Sluffy. These people are not interested in the truth or the facts but only interested in suppressing it and making any feeble excuse they can think of for their conduct.

I hope it will change but I doubt it will. Its gone too far, way too far and there seems to be a collective mendacity every bit as contagious as corona virus.

Specifically, which part of this statement isn’t true:

Iles states a fact, while Anderson plugged the gap there was enough money in the pot to pay the wages. When he stopped doing that, there wasn’t.