Amazon account been hacked
Warrant out for my arrest
BT broadband to be cut off
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Thanks Sluffy, appreciate the response. I was really playing devils advocate with my response to Bob - i don't know the reasons/motive behind what was agreed with FGR.
Bob, on the other hand, has intimated that the facts make it obvious - I think it's pretty clear that they don't, and we're left with a few different theories.
I get plenty myself.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:However as I've said a number of times now, the moment has gone and since been lost in time, everybody directly involved seems to have resolved their issues over the transfer and moved on, so seems only sensible (to me at least) that we do the same.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I get plenty myself.
£600 has been taken from your account. This is so regular I'm surprised I've any money left.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Carry on like this, Sluffy, and I'm going to have to enrol you on an intensive course with Judge Judy.
You haven't got your 'listening ears' on and haven't got your 'thinking head' on either.
BWFC was insolvent, couldn't pay its debts on time and, losing £100K per week, couldn't trade out of the
situation. It wasn't marginal, equivocal, uncertain, foggy, confusing, nebulous, misty, hazy. It was as plain as the plainest pikestaff.
The only legal justification for continuing in business was to try to raise more capital to turn insolvency into solvency. That's what Ken Anderson was trying to do and it didn't work for him just as it hadn't worked for Eddie over all the years he tried.
I'm still recommending a Judge Judy course. Its very educational. Watch and learn how, in the blink of an eye, she sees through the shysters, wafflers and timewasters and cuts them down to size in an instant.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
Isn't that, put more bluntly admittedly, what I said?
"If you fear that your company has reached an insolvent position, you must tread very carefully. Insolvency is when you are unable to pay bills as they fall due, or when the total of company liabilities exceeds the total value of assets held.
Trading while knowingly insolvent may lead to accusations of wrongful trading, or the more serious charge of fraudulent trading if you are thought to have deliberately attempted to deny creditors what they are owed.
Both wrongful trading and fraudulent trading are offences under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Companies Act 2006. Wrongful trading is a civil offence, while fraudulent trading is a criminal offence.
It is incumbent on a director to be aware of their company’s financial position at all times, and putting forward a defence that you were unaware of the insolvent situation will carry little weight. Failing to realise that a company is in financial difficulties may be regarded as negligent, irresponsible, or proof of ‘unfit conduct’ of directors, which will add to the seriousness of the situation".
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
From my point of view he went down the 'wrongful trading' path -
"Directors have an obligation to inform company shareholders when an insolvent position has been reached, and to seek the guidance of a licensed Insolvency Practitioner.
Although directors may have carried on trading with good intentions in order to ultimately guide the company out of trouble, they have a duty to put creditors’ interests first when insolvency strikes and to limit creditors’ exposure to additional debt. In many cases this will mean the company should cease trading immediately, however, there are certain exceptions to this such as if the company is midway through a lucrative contract which will bring in more money to the business than it will cost to complete. The rules surrounding this are complex and fraught with complications therefore professional insolvency advice should be taken as a matter of urgency".
Otherwise as you so clearly put it he would had to notify ALL the shareholders that the company was insolvent and although he owned most of the shares there were others owning on paper at least just over 5% of it - and they were certainly never notified (not knowingly anyway!).
He either had to admit that the club WAS insolvent at the time it became so - let's for argument sake say it was before the Doidge transfer OR he had to trade in probably a 'wrongful trading' situation justifying his actions as in the best interests of the club in that, presumably, he was in the process of selling it?
As he didn't declare to the shareholders the club was insolvent then in his eyes, and presumably the Administrators afterwards who up to now have taken no action against him / nor Companies House either - have deemed it to not have been - despite the clear evidence you present.
I don't disagree with your facts or even your conclusions but actual events haven't confirmed that was the case so 'officially' and until we learn something contrary in the future, the record books will show that it wasn't.
So I believe I've been actually saying the same as you but in a more, shall we say, sugar coated way.
I've always had a thirst for learning and would go back to school to learn more any day. I'm not sure Judge Judy, Judge Rinder or Judge Romesh would be right for me but I think I would find Judge David Attenborough, Judge Maggie Aderin-Pocock and Judge Jim Al-Khalili much more of a personal interest, although I doubt their specialisms are about company insolvencies!
I would have my listening ears and thinking head on though.
I'd invite you to attend with me, I'm sure neither one of us are past learning something new.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I'm still recommending a Judge Judy course. Its very educational. Watch and learn how, in the blink of an eye, she sees through the shysters, wafflers and timewasters and cuts them down to size in an instant.
The debts were real, the losses were real and both Vince and Anderson knew it when Doidge was packed off to the Reebok/Macron/Unibol in August 2018.
KA was walking a financial tightrope with no safety net. He wasn't getting paid £550 per hour with all the legal protections administrators have. But he was an accomplished tightrope walker and got to the other side in the end despite every effort to push him off.
As for Eddie, he had an obligation to his wife not to spend any more of the severely diminished fortune they had left on keeping BWFC afloat for just a bit longer.
Interesting how we get from Jussi Jaaskelainen to Judge Judy but I'm not sure you've taken the point, Lusty. Judge Judy would not be a star if she was an old waffler, would she? She's a star because of the way she cuts through the hogwash, the evasions, the illusions and the delusions.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:TBH Bob, I find Judge Judy irritating as the show is based around her arbitrarily deciding who she feels in in the wrong and then shutting down any evidence to the contrary and focusing entirely on the bits that support her perspective.
There are some cases where she is clearly in the right - perhaps that's why those cases were selected for broadcast - but equally there are many which appear contestable but the TV format doesn't allow for due process. Absolutely amazed the decisions are considered legally binding but I guess that the spotlight seekers who want to be on telly sign some form of disclaimer and have to accept the consequences. Haven't watched it for years for these very reasons so perhaps it's improved of late?
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum