Last I heard, it was court tomorrow

 

ST and Lies reported 3, including Heathcotes mob

 

KA said that was old news, leaving 2

 

 

Now, I can see HMRC is definitely a club issue,but the other is Sport Shield

 

If we assume KA can deal with HMRC debt - I'd have been happier if he had sorted that one already, tbf- that 'just' leaves SS and blumarble

 

If the court agrees to wind up SS, do we know what that means and also the impact on BWFC

Edited May 21, 20179 yr by Casino

Is this melt speaking on behalf of the ST?

Melt?

Liquidator needs to gain best value for creditors I.e blue marble.

 

This all boils down to the gtee and if it's valid or not. If it is and liquidator calls it in we're fucked unless ken or a n other stumps up cash to repay them. If it's not blue marble will simply transfer liability onto there lawyers and get p aid out that way.

 

Either way I can't see how blue marble aren't getting a sizeable chunk of what they're owed and most certainly in excess of the initial 5m loan.

Quite probably right. Unless the lawyers advised them the guarantee may not be valid, but to take it anyway.

Liquidator needs to gain best value for creditors I.e blue marble.

 

This all boils down to the gtee and if it's valid or not. If it is and liquidator calls it in we're fucked unless ken or a n other stumps up cash to repay them. If it's not blue marble will simply transfer liability onto there lawyers and get p aid out that way.

 

Either way I can't see how blue marble aren't getting a sizeable chunk of what they're owed and most certainly in excess of the initial 5m loan.

If the guarantee ain't worth paper it's written on the liquidator will get bollocks all in my opinion.

Ken does not have to play ball with the liquidator from where I'm looking

Is this true, or opinion?

 

I think the law is he has to provide the liquidator all relevant information that is asked for. He can't he charging half a million a pop for it either.

Is this true, or opinion?

 

I think the law is he has to provide the liquidator all relevant information that is asked for. He can't he charging half a million a pop for it either.

When I say play ball I mean he does not have to offer anything for the shares, my guess is the shares are virtually worthless I wouldn't be offering anything for them I think blue marble going to be greatly disappointed trying to realise anything from them.

Is this melt speaking on behalf of the ST?

 

Any officer of a public body should ALWAYS act impartially as they are there to represent the wishes of those they represent.

 

As the Chairman of the ST he should not be expressing a personal opinion full stop, let alone do so publically over social media - repeatedly!!!

 

He should also not be 'blocking' people such as myself simply for holding a different view to him.

 

Iles liked and retweeted Izza's video - once again I don't believe he is acting professionally in doing so (even though it is his personal twitter account) because he should be reporting WITHOUT BIAS on the news and developments  - not clearly 'promoting' and 'championing' the opinions of just one of the sides.

 

The ST retweeted their Chairman's video (via Iles re-tweet) - so they clearly are endorsing Izza's comments.

 

So, yes, it clearly is the ST's official position on this - whether their membership agree with it or not!!!

Deano paid £1 for his shares, they ain't worth any more at this stage

 

The loan guaranteed against the assets of the club(ground) is entirely different isn't it?

Any officer of a public body should ALWAYS act impartially as they are there to represent the wishes of those they represent.

 

As the Chairman of the ST he should not be expressing a personal opinion full stop, let alone do so publically over social media - repeatedly!!!

 

He should also not be 'blocking' people such as myself simply for holding a different view to him.

 

Iles liked and retweeted Izza's video - once again I don't believe he is acting professionally in doing so (even though it is his personal twitter account) because he should be reporting WITHOUT BIAS on the news and developments - not clearly 'promoting' and 'championing' the opinions of just one of the sides.

 

The ST retweeted their Chairman's video (via Iles re-tweet) - so they clearly are endorsing Izza's comments.

 

So, yes, it clearly is the ST's official position on this - whether their membership agree with it or not!!!

Anyone can block who they want on twitter why should they not block you? I don't blame them given your fruitcake agenda. Retweeting does not necessarily mean you support that view, Izza post was an attempt to explain the situation and from what I saw wasn't siding with anyone and is his own opinion and cannot be representative of all the thousands of Trusts members, granted it was a poor attempt at explaining what's going on. Iles is a pleb however you are worse your agenda once again rears its head you need to let go or even better seek a physchiatrist.

Edited August 28, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

It's similar to those on here who continually spout tripe towards Bower and Smurf then gripe when they find they've been blocked. You don't have to do anything other than press a button and even in this quiet corner of the internet word gets out. Social media is a terrible invention

Anyone can block who they want on twitter why should they not block you? Retweeting does not necessarily mean you support that view, Izza post was an attempt to explain the situation and from what I saw wasn't siding with anyone and is his own opinion and cannot be representative of all the Trusts members, granted it was a poor attempt at explaining what's going on. Iles is a pleb however you are worse your agenda once again rears its head you need to let go or even better seek a psychiatrist .

 

Izza REPRESENTS a publicly elected body.

 

Publically elected representatives should defer their own personal opinions because they should be acting IMPARTIALLY.

 

Once Izza stands down from the ST which he represents, he can say what he wants and block whoever he pleases.

 

Until that day he should show no bias (either pro or anti) to anyone.

 

That is how an elected body works - or should be.

 

Similarly an elected body - such as the ST should also be REPRESENTATIVE of its members who elected them into office.

 

Izza's video is his OPINION on things - he does not speak for the liquidator, who has sole powers to act.

 

If Izza has any EVIDENCE that Anderson and/or the club has acted improperly he should have reported this at once to the proper authority at the time.

 

If he hasn't he should not (in his position as the Chair of the ST) be IMPLYING that there is.

 

Iles may or may not be a pleb, but as him NOT being a publicly elected official, is free to say what he wants on social media (or anywhere else for that matter) and be biased and blinkered as he wants to be about one side over another - BUT it shows complete lack of professionalism on his part and compromises his ability to report without BIAS and IMPATIALITY which should be the cornerstones of the job he is paid to do.

 

As for your opinion of myself - sticks and stones and all that - but you are being very childish if you simply reject everything I say just because it is I who have said it. 

You can't +1 a twitter reply so I've done it here, Barry. Good work .

Stop... Why has Izza filmed his eyebrows for 2 minutes? What a cockwomble.

And why does he look about 30 years older than his profile picture? Like a shit online dating profile.

https://twitter.com/dsizza/status/902220433143058432

 

Nice

Absolute quality comment from our very own Barry there! :-)

I never got past the nostrils, mesmerising.

Liquidator needs to gain best value for creditors I.e blue marble.

This all boils down to the gtee and if it's valid or not. If it is and liquidator calls it in we're fucked unless ken or a n other stumps up cash to repay them. If it's not blue marble will simply transfer liability onto there lawyers and get p aid out that way.

Either way I can't see how blue marble aren't getting a sizeable chunk of what they're owed and most certainly in excess of the initial 5m loan.

As I understand it the guarantee on assets isn't as yet the issue. BM need to take further legal action there. This is about ownership of those shares. As Mounts says above, the shares are probably worthless and Anderson seems to be letting it play out till we are at that point.

Let's hope this Indian fella manages to complete sale on his newsagents today or we are stuffed

There it is

There it is

What ?

Let's hope this Indian fella manages to complete sale on his newsagents today or we are stuffed

venkys mark two????

Difference is Venky's do have money, they just won't part with it.

Difference is Venky's do have money, they just won't part with it.

I think they have over the years. Just not very well.

Nothing compared to the promises made when they took over.

Nothing compared to the promises made when they took over.

 

Blackburn have spent money. They've just wasted it. The Venkys issue has been not being able to make decisions and running the club from India via committee. They lost many good players where deals were lined up but Venkys took a month to sign it off.

 

The thing is with owners prepared to spend lots of money it works when they come in, show ambition, get a top manager and have a splurge initially. I think when they do what Venkys did or Eddie did here and spend a bit then a bit more then a bit more, going through average managers it doesn't work and just leaves the club in a mess.

We've been reasonable at wasting money tbf - Ngog Sordell et al