Re: Marc Green : Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:12 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Hmm. Which do I rely on. In the blue corner, we have an off-cummed'un with the natty alias of Peter Hood, trolling a forum and claiming one thing.

In the red corner, we have The Gazette, the UK's official public record since 1665.

Which is likely to be the most reliable source of information?

It is obviously a close call, but I'm gonna roll with The Gazette.

But all that shows is that the amount of debt was not proven or that and agreement has been reached/the amount owning has been paid. It doesn't PROVE anything

Re: Marc Green : Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:30 pm  

Peter Hood wrote:

I hope you reserve some of the above when it transpires that the winding up order has only been deferred and still needs paying in full.

Wouldn't it be nice to seek immunity from the disingenuous.

Maybe we could come up with some sort of imaginative marketing exercise to get cash out of the fans to cover it?

We'd better make sure that a load of expensive glossy leaflets are printed first and sent out in the post.

Anyway if you are the real Peter Hood you'll have tattoo of a British bulldog on your left buttock.

So I'll ask, do you have a tattoo of a British Bulldog on your left buttock?

Re: Marc Green : Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:54 pm  

roofaldo2 wrote:

But all that shows is that the amount of debt was not proven or that and agreement has been reached/the amount owning has been paid. It doesn't PROVE anything

No, it doesn't show any of those things. It shows one thing only, and that is, the Petition was, as we had been told, dismissed.

You can offer as many theories of why it was dismissed, or what possible scenarios preceded it as you like. I am looking at straight fact. The statement that it was "deferred" is simply wrong.

You are also wrong that the HMRC and Bulls could simply do a deal. It doesn't work like that. There has to be a hearing. This isn't some rubberstamping exercise.

Re: Marc Green : Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:14 pm  

Nothus wrote:

Mind if I ask what your old username was? Just out of curiosity.

Not at all. It was Heritage.

Re: Marc Green : Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:51 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

No, it doesn't show any of those things. It shows one thing only, and that is, the Petition was, as we had been told, dismissed.

You can offer as many theories of why it was dismissed, or what possible scenarios preceded it as you like. I am looking at straight fact. The statement that it was "deferred" is simply wrong.

You are also wrong that the HMRC and Bulls could simply do a deal. It doesn't work like that. There has to be a hearing. This isn't some rubberstamping exercise.

But HMRC and the club have done a deal as such. Green has only paid a percentage with the remainder due this month.

Re: Marc Green : Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:52 pm  

Top House Lad wrote:

Not at all. It was Heritage.

John.

Re: Marc Green : Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:15 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

No, it doesn't show any of those things. It shows one thing only, and that is, the Petition was, as we had been told, dismissed.

You can offer as many theories of why it was dismissed, or what possible scenarios preceded it as you like. I am looking at straight fact. The statement that it was "deferred" is simply wrong.

You are also wrong that the HMRC and Bulls could simply do a deal. It doesn't work like that. There has to be a hearing. This isn't some rubberstamping exercise.

The term used is dismissed. That can only be the outcome if there's not sufficient evidence or the debt is paid or and agreement regarding the repayment is reached

Re: Marc Green : Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:20 pm  

Also, with regards to the Paul Clough leaving things, the Bulls are putting his photo up on social media regarding an educational award. Not really an obvious move for a club and player parting ways to agree in a publicity spot

Re: Marc Green : Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:47 pm  

roofaldo2 wrote:

The term used is dismissed. That can only be the outcome if there's not sufficient evidence or the debt is paid or and agreement regarding the repayment is reached

I don't know what your point is. What does your comment add? I'm the one stating/agreeing the petition was dismissed, as opposed to "deferred".

Also, your third option is not complete. It would not be sufficient just for HMRC and a company to reach an agreement. The Court needs to consider the interests of all creditors. It's not ultimately up to the parties, it's up to the Court when it has reached that stage.

Peter Hood wrote:

But HMRC and the club have done a deal as such. Green has only paid a percentage with the remainder due this month.

But you are not a reliable source. Why should we rely on your new version, when you made up the bit about the winding up petition having been "deferred"?

Re: Marc Green : Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:58 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Carry on? Carry on what?? Are you saying that whether we get part time RL in 2017 depends on how redeverready "carries on"? What a burden to bear

I'm not sure if I can carry such a burden.