Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:56 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You mean, when you asked:
... and I answered your reasonable question by pointing out:
Which it was.
No further response needed, the position remains just the same. I'm not sure why it seems to annoy you so much.

Thanks, but I prefer to devote it to selflessly answering your questions.

Eliciting the same laughable "I am right because its me that said it" response from you is hardly annoying, it is what I was intending our dear troll friends to see. So why are you right when the club and the RFL all in their statements say quite the opposite, that it was one year of funding paid over two years. You seem to be making the same mistake of a lot of wet behind the ears accountants make, of confusing profit effect and cash flow. So what evidence to you have to support your assertion and the arithmetic you did, and the statement that the club should be claiming the over deducted money back ? provide it by PM and I will publicly declare you right on this forum, I am only after the truth, nothing else. I have nothing to be defensive about on this.

Over to you.

Actually, no, I will answer. Because I am FA I am right, whatever I say.

You kid yourself.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 10, 2014 11:21 pm  

debaser wrote:

That's a good point. If he was to buy the Bulls, then surely they could no longer owe him any money as it would be like owing yourself some money. In which case, there could be no points deduction.

It's a genius plan. Go for it Omar....

Oh sweet lord imagine the implosion we would see on here, so for that reason alone

"Omar give us a wave, Omar, Omar give us a wave"

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:30 am  

Don't forget the HMRC because they won't forget you.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:17 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

Eliciting the same laughable "I am right because its me that said it" response from you is hardly annoying,

Your little vendetta is becoming boring. I am right because I know the facts. They are the same to any person who knows the facts. Not because it's me, but because it is the case.

martinwildbull wrote:

it is what I was intending our dear troll friends to see.

yes, bit weird that, playing to an audience of trolls. Hmm...

martinwildbull wrote:

So why are you right when the club and the RFL all in their statements say quite the opposite,

They don't. But if they did, then they would be either mistaken, or lying.

martinwildbull wrote:

You seem to be making the same mistake of a lot of wet behind the ears accountants make, of confusing profit effect and cash flow.

Come again? It is nothing to do with either. You are trying to complicate a simple matter.

martinwildbull wrote:

So what evidence to you have to support your assertion

It is a fact which i happen to know. If you want to call it an assertion, that's fine, and to you it is both. It is an assertion, because you don't know, but it is also a fact, you just don't accept that. Which is of course your choice. It doesn't matter to me if you don't believe me, please do not think that it does. i only post to inform, people are free to make of it whatever they feel like.

martinwildbull wrote:

and the arithmetic you did, and the statement that the club should be claiming the over deducted money back ?

Well, it is probably academic now, as the party which entered into the agreement (OKB) is in no position to do much about it any more. Any new owner who was asked to stump up the balance (as BB2014 apparently were, though no formal announcement was ever made) if by any chance they were persuaded to agree to such a silly thing, should insist on checking the deal so they don't get similarly fleeced.

martinwildbull wrote:

provide it by PM and I will publicly declare you right on this forum, I am only after the truth, nothing else. I have nothing to be defensive about on this.

Would be good though if you could engage brain before further opening gob, son. Your declaration would do nothing to convince any other person who does not wish to believe what I have said, as they would simply demand the same proof you had seen, and so on. So why on earth would you think that YOUR imprimatur would be accepted by the forum, in just the way you rabidly insist mine is not acceptable?

martinwildbull wrote:

Over to you.
Actually, no, I will answer. Because I am FA I am right, whatever I say.
You kid yourself.

You probably realise now how childish that was, but really, take it or leave it, I don't care.

[Bullseye]

Re: The 5 runners and riders : Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:50 am  

redeverready wrote:

We may be getting Hoodwinked regarding one of the bids.

I hope you're joking.

Re: The 5 runners and riders : Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:16 am  

Ever seen the Monty Python sketch, the 100m for people with no sense of direction?

Re: The 5 runners and riders : Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:37 am  

I remember when the club effectively folded following the Caisley-initiated coup, there was much talk of eventually getting to the bottom of how the finances had got into such a sudden mess, that we all of a sudden needed £1/2m just to exist, but - entirely predictably - not a single fact has ever emerged. No inquiry, no investigation, nothing.

So we have no evidence why that meltdown happened, just that it did, and we know who was at the helm. We know that hood & Co. said they had a plan, and whatever it was, there is no doubt that it was holed below the waterline by the Caisley intervention, but that plan may have been rubbish too. Or it may have had a chance. How to know?

It was said on here that the directors had given personal bank guarantees but that at the time of the £1/2m the bank was paid off, and so the PGs were escaped from. This was so far as I know neither confirmed nor denied, though if it was the bank that was threatening the club then the only obvious way to stop a bank from hitting the destruct button is to pay what you owe. Did anyone read up if the bank was a substantial creditor in the liquidation?

What we can say for sure is that Hood & Co. were in charge when the ship suddenly hit some very big rocks, but how that happened it seems we are not destined to know. And we can all the more so only speculate on what might have been had Caisley not stepped in (and had anyone come up with an even remotely plausible theory as to why Caisley did what he did, when he did it? Has he ever said?) - except to know that we would still have been in the seemingly unmanageable old-shareholder mess that perhaps paralyzed the running of the club. But in these circumstances of ignorance only a fool would choose to board a replacement ship with the same captain.

From a fans' perspective - unfortunately we have no say. Whoever gets it, gets it, and that will be that. If indeed anyone does. What seems clear is, if you were interested in running the club before (as Hood & Co. obviously were) and if you didn't want to step down (as (Hood & Co. clearly didn't) then you would now be able to pick up the whole club debt free for a comparative song, with no shareholders, no debts, and no baggage. For which reason it wouldn't surprise me if the old regime were interested, if they didn't fall foul of the fit & proper RFL test..

Re: The 5 runners and riders : Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:06 am  

At Cheltenham on friday. In addition to the Gold Cup race there will be

The OK Bulls Ltd Selling Plate
The Skymoney Handicap
The SL Points Penalty Hurdle
The Loadsamoney Investor's Chase

Re: The 5 runners and riders : Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:06 am  

redeverready wrote:

We may be getting Hoodwinked regarding one of the bids.

But which horse from which stall? Hoods involvement would effect my odds!

Re: The 5 runners and riders : Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:30 am  

bobsmyuncle wrote:

At Cheltenham on friday. In addition to the Gold Cup race there will be

The OK Bulls Ltd Selling Plate
The Skymoney Handicap
The SL Points Penalty Hurdle
The Loadsamoney Investor's Chase

Cant wait for this should be some good odds in these new races,

accumulator here i come