Beware the Ides of March

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
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.

Someone was telling us, for a long while that Heathcote the caterers had stitched the club up big time with the contract but surprise, surprise, all the 'haters' didn't believe him.

Guess what the first thing the Administrators did once they got their feet under the table?

Answer - they immediately terminated it!

Partner, Andrew Hosking, said: “The priority of the administrators is to ensure the best outcome for stakeholders.

“We will be working with the management team to assist the hotel to return to short term profitability.

“To assist with this exercise the administrators have scrutinised the existing financial commitments of the hotel. It has become apparent that the existing contract for the provision of catering is not aligned to the objectives of the administrators and as such, the decision has been made to bring the provision of high-quality catering in house in the interest of the hotel and the creditors.”

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


(Funny that BIG Paul Heathcote buddy, Marc Iles didn't write this article.  

Come to think of it though he's never written anything bad about his other buddies Dean Holdsworth and the ST!)

T.R.O.Y wrote:

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. 

This bit.

I'll try once again just for you.

If Anderson put anything into the club he did so as a creditor - BWFC are liable for the wages - and more to the point the tax also on them.  It would be a criminal offence if Anderson paid the wages directly (and thus avoid tax) as the players aren't contracted to him.

When the Administrators looked at the books the only thing Anderson was claiming as a creditor was £7.5m made up of two payments of £2.5 initially then £5m given to him by Davies, the £5m specifically to settle Holdsworth BM loan.

The Administrator ruled out £6m of this claim and in the end he settled for £237k.

Anderson therefore never risked any of his money to fund the club - the Administrator clearly believed he wasn't a creditor to BWFC for this money and neither was Davies and thus struck it out - in which case how could, as Iles states, Anderson stop funding the club to pay the wages???

Have you got it yet?

I don’t know why we are putting up with this obtuse arrogant little shithouse in all honesty.

karlypants wrote:I don’t know why we are putting up with this obtuse arrogant little shithouse in all honesty.

Bob's not bad.

karlypants wrote:I don’t know why we are putting up with this obtuse arrogant little shithouse in all honesty.

I'm not as bad as all that Karly!

Joking aside he just gets his jollies from arguing until the other person gets sick of replying.

I don't know if he feels like he needs to be proven right all the time but more than likely it is all about him getting his gratification in trying to wind people up.

Don't let him get to you mate!

He just has an opinion like everyone else.

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:

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. 

This bit.

I'll try once again just for you.

If Anderson put anything into the club he did so as a creditor - BWFC are liable for the wages - and more to the point the tax also on them.  It would be a criminal offence if Anderson paid the wages directly (and thus avoid tax) as the players aren't contracted to him.

When the Administrators looked at the books the only thing Anderson was claiming as a creditor was £7.5m made up of two payments of £2.5 initially then £5m given to him by Davies, the £5m specifically to settle Holdsworth BM loan.

The Administrator ruled out £6m of this claim and in the end he settled for £237k.

Anderson therefore never risked any of his money to fund the club - the Administrator clearly believed he wasn't a creditor to BWFC for this money and neither was Davies and thus struck it out - in which case how could, as Iles states, Anderson stop funding the club to pay the wages???

Have you got it yet?

You miss the point. It’s not about where the money came from, who decided to divert the money away from the salaries and elsewhere? You want to twist Iles statement into something it isn’t. 

Time to move on with all this shit Sluffy, I thought you’d have held your hands up and moved on months ago.

And by the way - don’t blame Anderson for the club running out of money. It’s a business decision.

boltonbonce wrote:

karlypants wrote:I don’t know why we are putting up with this obtuse arrogant little shithouse in all honesty.

Bob's not bad.

Kind of you to say so, Bonsey. Much appreciated.
Can I ask you a question?
Did you pay income tax when you were  working? If so, how would you feel about somebody drawing a million quid a year and not paying income tax on it?

Are you talking about someone who's 'bending the rules'?

T.R.O.Y wrote:
You miss the point. It’s not about where the money came from, who decided to divert the money away from the salaries and elsewhere? You want to twist Iles statement into something it isn’t. 

Time to move on with all this shit Sluffy, I thought you’d have held your hands up and moved on months ago.

Not me in denial mate.

Did Anderson put his own money into the club?

The Administrator says no - it's not me who is saying so.

Are you calling the Administrator a liar or something?

Iles states Anderson WAS putting money into the club - it's there in black and white from him.

It's there for everyone to see.

He wasn't.

Is Ilse smarter than the Administrator - clearly not.

I'm not playing your game anymore, you're just a wum.

We all can see it.

BoltonTillIDie wrote:He just has an opinion like everyone else.

There is a difference between opinion and fact.

The Administrator is stating fact not opinions and that's the legal view that I'm following.  Everything else quite frankly is just pure bullshit.

At the end of the day the Administrator is the representative of the court.

His word is the law no matter what opinion you may have.

Does anyone really believe TROY is in a superior position to say the Administrator is wrong?

Of course he's not.

QED.

You are so desperate not to be wrong on the internet Sluffy, it’s tragic. You’ve made an tit out of yourself over Anderson for years. 

Specifically trying to claim I’m suggesting I know more than the administrator. I’ve done nothing of the sort, I don’t know enough about the situation. I do know you’ve had multiple theories on Anderson, consistently brow beat anyone who questioned you as idiots and then flipped your view when the facts came out and disproved you.

Move on.

boltonbonce wrote:Are you talking about someone who's 'bending the rules'?

You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

But someone else has and he just happens to be the former Finance Director of Dale Vince's Forest Green Rovers and Egotricity (sorry Freudian slip - Ecotricity)

He said this:

• 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

Did anyone hear a whistle blow? Thought not. Must have imagined it.

Are you saying he's broken the law?

boltonbonce wrote:Are you saying he's broken the law?

You'd have to ask the former FD of FGR. He'll know more about it, won't he?

He also might have some views as to why there were reported profits in the three years he signed off the accounts and nothing but big losses since he left.

But the Ecotricity Group accounts have been filed late in three of the last six years and that is unlawful.

When the pot calls the kettle black, the kettle might also have something to say about it all.

Why not pay Mr Vince a visit and discuss it over one or two of his pies.

T.R.O.Y wrote:You are so desperate not to be wrong on the internet Sluffy, it’s tragic. You’ve made an tit out of yourself over Anderson for years. 

Specifically trying to claim I’m suggesting I know more than the administrator. I’ve done nothing of the sort, I don’t know enough about the situation. I do know you’ve had multiple theories on Anderson, consistently brow beat anyone who questioned you as idiots and then flipped your view when the facts came out and disproved you.

Move on.

Meltdown time, hahaha.

As for being so desperate not to be wrong (and I'm sure it extends much further than just the internet) then I suggest you have a very good look at yourself.

I'm more than able to admit to mistakes when I've made them, such as apologising to you only the other day in respect of the throw away comment I'd made a year or two ago about Bezos!

All this really as nothing to do at all with Anderson has it and simply you trolling me whatever I post - I assume because of some old forum grievance you have about me from years back.

If so then I suggest you take your own advise about moving on.

Have a nice day!

boltonbonce wrote:Are you saying he's broken the law?

P.S. Boncey.

If you don't want to be bothered travelling to Stroud, why don't you have a think about whether you have any pals that know anything about business.

Because you could ask them to explain what it means if there's a two million quid overdrawn directors loan account in a company's accounts. I guarantee the first answer you'll get is either ''how much?'' or ''what company's that?''

Ten bob why can't you just answer a question without implying whoever you are answering is a moron and beneath you?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:Are you saying he's broken the law?

P.S. Boncey.

If you don't want to be bothered travelling to Stroud, why don't you have a think about whether you have any pals that know anything about business.

Because you could ask them to explain what it means if there's a two million quid overdrawn directors loan account in a company's accounts. I guarantee the first answer you'll get is either ''two million quid?'' or ''what company's that?''

Bob, my late boss was a billionaire. He knew every trick in the book, so I've heard it all. It was boring then, and it still is. I'm off to the dentist today, which will be much more fun than reading this thread. We're dancing on the end of a pin.
He also made two cups of tea with only one tea bag. He was proud of it.