Re: Points deduction poll : Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:48 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

So sweet FA is a creditor? That's the only way he can be confident of his £1m invested figure.

So despite arguing vehemently against it. You now accept that if someone were a creditor, or were given information from a creditor. They could be confident of that figure.

What this tells us is, that you accept that what FA is saying could possibly be true. Yet you have argued it definitely isnt. These two things are mutually exclusive. Something cannot possibly be true if it definitely isnt. This makes it pretty obvious you dont have a clue either way and were trying to bluff your way out. You were trying to hide behind an absence of public information rather than having your own definitive information.

If you were someone who knew this figure to be incorrect, you would know it was incorrect by having your own definitive different information. What information FA had would be irrelevant. We now know you dont have this different definitive information. You bluffed. Your bluff was called. You are a busted flush. Know when to walk away from the table.

Re: Points deduction poll : Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:56 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

is LeagueDweeb still pretending to be in the know? i thought it was pretty much confirmed they were simply on a wind up? Are they still persisting?

I believe he's adopted a strategy that if you dig down long enough, you'll start digging up

Re: Points deduction poll : Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:52 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

So despite arguing vehemently against it. You now accept that if someone were a creditor, or were given information from a creditor. They could be confident of that figure.

What this tells us is, that you accept that what FA is saying could possibly be true. Yet you have argued it definitely isnt. These two things are mutually exclusive. Something cannot possibly be true if it definitely isnt. This makes it pretty obvious you dont have a clue either way and were trying to bluff your way out. You were trying to hide behind an absence of public information rather than having your own definitive information.

If you were someone who knew this figure to be incorrect, you would know it was incorrect by having your own definitive different information. What information FA had would be irrelevant. We now know you dont have this different definitive information. You bluffed. Your bluff was called. You are a busted flush. Know when to walk away from the table.

The creditors will not know anything other than the amount of money they are individually owed, through the claims they have lodged with the administrator.

FA has based his whole £1m on nothing more than a figure 'believed' to be £900,000- as speculated upon by the local newspaper at the time Ryan Whitcut was trying to engineer a way out of OK Bulls for OK.

Perhaps what you need to do is actually look closer at the behaviour of OK and RW and the sequence of event behind the scenes, plus the activities of both in the lead up to the meltdown.

There is not one shred of evidence to support the figure FA claims. It's a fallacy, and quite frankly beyond comprehension that OK would pump in £1m then within a month look to sell his stake in the company for just 20% of that amount.

I am guessing that FA is Gerry Sutcliffe, as he is the only other person who has claimed the £1m figure as genuine.

The administrator has never produced anything to support this figure. He hasn't communicated anything to anyone, let alone creditors, since his statement of affairs report.

Please feel free to provide any evidence yourself that will support a completely false claim. Of course that is unless you think there is no need for anyone to support claims they make.

Re: Points deduction poll : Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:54 pm  

roofaldo2 wrote:

I believe he's adopted a strategy that if you dig down long enough, you'll start digging up

I think you'll find that I am right. This will become clear once the final report is produced.

Re: Points deduction poll : Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:00 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

I am guessing that FA is Gerry Sutcliffe,

You are Poirot & I claim my 5 Belgian truffles.

Re: Points deduction poll : Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:09 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

The creditors will not know anything other than the amount of money they are individually owed, through the claims they have lodged with the administrator.

FA has based his whole £1m on nothing more than a figure 'believed' to be £900,000- .

Liar. I have told the forum what happened at the creditors' meeting.

LeagueDweeb wrote:

There is not one shred of evidence to support the figure FA claims.

Liar. For the umpteenth - and final - time, THE EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED AT THE CREDITORS MEETING AND ACCEPTED TO THE TUNE OF AROUND £1M BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.

LeagueDweeb wrote:

I am guessing that FA is Gerry Sutcliffe, as he is the only other person who has claimed the £1m figure as genuine.

And, like your usual guesswork, you guess wrong.

LeagueDweeb wrote:

The administrator has never produced anything to support this figure. He hasn't communicated anything to anyone, let alone creditors, since his statement of affairs report.

Look you idiot the creditors meeting was called, inter alia, BECAUSE the administrator had OK in at only around £400K. It is not up to the administrator to produce anything to support a creditor's claim - even my dog would probably understand that much.

Re: Points deduction poll : Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:27 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

The creditors will not know anything other than the amount of money they are individually owed, through the claims they have lodged with the administrator.

FA has based his whole £1m on nothing more than a figure 'believed' to be £900,000- as speculated upon by the local newspaper at the time Ryan Whitcut was trying to engineer a way out of OK Bulls for OK.

And if you knew this figure to be incorrect you would know it to be incorrect. Whether FA was a creditor or knew a creditor would be irrelevant.

There is difference between you knowing this figure is wrong, and you not being aware of this figure.

Perhaps what you need to do is actually look closer at the behaviour of OK and RW and the sequence of event behind the scenes, plus the activities of both in the lead up to the meltdown.

Why, none of that would be relevant to what YOU have said.

There is not one shred of evidence to support the figure FA claims. It's a fallacy, and quite frankly beyond comprehension that OK would pump in £1m then within a month look to sell his stake in the company for just 20% of that amount.

The only one indulging in a fallacy here is you. It is a clear and obvious logical fallacy. If you KNOW this figure to be incorrect then you have your own definitive information to the contrary. The fact you dont, and you are relying on an absence of evidence in favour as your proof PROVES that you dont know. It you know definitively as you state then FA's evidence is irrelevant because you can prove the opposite. If you cannot, then you cannot possibly know.

I am guessing that FA is Gerry Sutcliffe, as he is the only other person who has claimed the £1m figure as genuine.

The administrator has never produced anything to support this figure. He hasn't communicated anything to anyone, let alone creditors, since his statement of affairs report.

Please feel free to provide any evidence yourself that will support a completely false claim. Of course that is unless you think there is no need for anyone to support claims they make.

I am not claiming either way. You are. Perhaps it is time you provide your definitive evidence?

Re: Points deduction poll : Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:43 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

I think you'll find that I am right. This will become clear once the final report is produced.

So, you're right even though everyone else is not only saying you're wrong, but providing evidence to support exactly WHY you're wrong? Good luck with that.

Re: Points deduction poll : Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:12 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

FA's evidence

I am not claiming either way. You are. Perhaps it is time you provide your definitive evidence?

FA's evidence? sorry, at best hearsay without an independent authoritative source. When i see an amended statement from the administrator, I will consider that evidence,

Re: Points deduction poll : Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:48 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

FA's evidence? sorry, at best hearsay without an independent authoritative source. When i see an amended statement from the administrator, I will consider that evidence,

Good to know. I'm sure the thing most people on here crave, above all, is to hear the outcome of your ruminations once you have "considered" such "evidence" as the administrator may provide to you. I know that it's top of my list, and that the administrator will be yearning for your approval.

Maybe you should attend the 16 July hearing. You might learn a bit more there.