By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 08:47 - Mar 18 by E20Jack
So it has nothing to do with it ... yet you base your whole latest post and thus whole point on it. That makes as much sense as the amazing spelling continually contained your spreadsheets.
There is clearly a very sinister reason why a Danish fella in his mid fifties decides to reside on a football forum of a team he has no affinity to, has stated he has no interest in the football side of things... and yet rears his head whenever he tragically and mistakenly feels he can add something on the financial side of things.
Very odd you took the Trusts knock back so to heart. Almost like it ruined whatever fantasy based plan you had...
For shame.
Correct. That sinister reason is pure dumb Christian charity, helping the ordinary fans combat the devious plans and schemes of greedy financial operators.
Just like when I gave the Trust the legal tools to go to court to get their money out.
And the cross I have to bear for that is occasionally interacting with scum like you.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 08:47 - Mar 18 by E20Jack
So it has nothing to do with it ... yet you base your whole latest post and thus whole point on it. That makes as much sense as the amazing spelling continually contained your spreadsheets.
There is clearly a very sinister reason why a Danish fella in his mid fifties decides to reside on a football forum of a team he has no affinity to, has stated he has no interest in the football side of things... and yet rears his head whenever he tragically and mistakenly feels he can add something on the financial side of things.
Very odd you took the Trusts knock back so to heart. Almost like it ruined whatever fantasy based plan you had...
For shame.
"Very odd you took the Trusts knock back so to heart."
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 08:59 - Mar 18 by Shaky
Correct. That sinister reason is pure dumb Christian charity, helping the ordinary fans combat the devious plans and schemes of greedy financial operators.
Just like when I gave the Trust the legal tools to go to court to get their money out.
And the cross I have to bear for that is occasionally interacting with scum like you.
[Post edited 18 Mar 2018 9:02]
Of course. I am afraid we both know it is far more sinister than that, your personality is the opposite of charitable or Christian, but you may have a case with the dumb part.
There is only one person who is scum on here good boy, and that is the fantasist, lying, chancer misogynist that is Shaky of the Bailey.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 09:14 - Mar 18 by E20Jack
Of course. I am afraid we both know it is far more sinister than that, your personality is the opposite of charitable or Christian, but you may have a case with the dumb part.
There is only one person who is scum on here good boy, and that is the fantasist, lying, chancer misogynist that is Shaky of the Bailey.
Right-o.
So what about this knock back from the Trust I have received?
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 09:04 - Mar 18 by Shaky
"Very odd you took the Trusts knock back so to heart."
BTW what are you talking about, Dim?
You were crying that they didn't thank you for providing them with the most obvious of unfair prejudice cases. Really got your knickers in a twist when they decided not to go with it and then got really angry when Lisa pointed out that you have no idea what was presented to the QC.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 09:16 - Mar 18 by E20Jack
You were crying that they didn't thank you for providing them with the most obvious of unfair prejudice cases. Really got your knickers in a twist when they decided not to go with it and then got really angry when Lisa pointed out that you have no idea what was presented to the QC.
Pretty simple.
Bullshit.
And by "the most obvious of unfair prejudice cases" you presumably mean one that for example corporate lawyer Dai Little was unable to spot?
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 09:20 - Mar 18 by Shaky
Bullshit.
And by "the most obvious of unfair prejudice cases" you presumably mean one that for example corporate lawyer Dai Little was unable to spot?
We have come to learn that the term "bulls*it" generally means the opposite when it comes from your very odd fingers.
Are you suggesting that the fact the Trust were the victims of unfair prejudice was something obscure then? What was the date you put that to the trust.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 08:03 - Mar 18 by Shaky
Clearly the problem here Lisa, is that my use of basic concepts in finance as rendered you as confused as the poor souls who voted for you in this poll.
The issue at hand is nothing to do with the "treatment of football players as intangible assets ".
It is the extent to which you can raise £70 million from player sales to fill the hole on the balance sheet and avoid bankruptcy, while remaining competitive in the Premier League/Championship/whatever.
Nice job though trying to defelct attention from you stunning failure to grasp the basics of working capital management and cash-flow.
[Post edited 18 Mar 2018 8:15]
So enough of this nonsense, Dim.
Let me bump this post to focus minds on the matter at hand.
. . And I finally gave the Trust the legal/financial arguments and case law backups probably a a year later, when they had been unable to follow the seed trail I had laid out.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 09:42 - Mar 18 by Shaky
. . And I finally gave the Trust the legal/financial arguments and case law backups probably a a year later, when they had been unable to follow the seed trail I had laid out.
The seed trail being the obvious case of unfair prejudice you mean?
. . . and since we are raking all this up, more on topic let us remind ourselves of the legal angle Lisa was promoting up until last summer if I am not very much mistaken: Quasi-Partnerships.
No doubt that was as compelling to Lisa's acolytes then, as her financial 'theories' are today.
Because like Trumpians, that is the nature of their non-evidence based, non-rationalist belief system.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 09:56 - Mar 18 by Shaky
. . . and since we are raking all this up, more on topic let us remind ourselves of the legal angle Lisa was promoting up until last summer if I am not very much mistaken: Quasi-Partnerships.
No doubt that was as compelling to Lisa's acolytes then, as her financial 'theories' are today.
Because like Trumpians, that is the nature of their non-evidence based, non-rationalist belief system.
Now I have things to do.
You always have things to do when you start sweating shakes. Precious thinking and google time.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 09:58 - Mar 18 by E20Jack
You always have things to do when you start sweating shakes. Precious thinking and google time.
No, Dim, I know I can safely depart when my opponent is out for the count; you arguing night is day until you are blue in the face doesn't alter that fact.
Plus I have a family, life, etc. You know, the sort of thing you read about?
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 10:03 - Mar 18 by Shaky
No, Dim, I know I can safely depart when my opponent is out for the count; you arguing night is day until you are blue in the face doesn't alter that fact.
Plus I have a family, life, etc. You know, the sort of thing you read about?
You keep telling yourself that. You are as transparent as your amateur spreadsheets. Saying "dimi" in every post really isn't going to help you. The other foreign embarrassment on here tried that too.
You are embarrassing.
If you do fancy pointing to the post you believe qualifies victory then please feel free. You haven't actually said anything of note yet other than refusing to answer the most basic of questions. Have you?
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 10:05 - Mar 18 by E20Jack
You keep telling yourself that. You are as transparent as your amateur spreadsheets. Saying "dimi" in every post really isn't going to help you. The other foreign embarrassment on here tried that too.
You are embarrassing.
If you do fancy pointing to the post you believe qualifies victory then please feel free. You haven't actually said anything of note yet other than refusing to answer the most basic of questions. Have you?
[Post edited 18 Mar 2018 10:09]
"do fancy pointing to the post you believe qualifies victory then please feel free."
I would have thought that was obvious to all, Dim.
You had just spent 5 posts pressing the claim that the Unfair Prejudice claim was apparent to all.
I then reminded you and everybody else that Lisa has been peddling the quasi-partnership guff forever.
Congratulations, you've just been beheaded.
But like the freak zombie creature you are, you come back from the dead spouting some other nonsense. Because you are a psycopath.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 10:30 - Mar 18 by Shaky
"do fancy pointing to the post you believe qualifies victory then please feel free."
I would have thought that was obvious to all, Dim.
You had just spent 5 posts pressing the claim that the Unfair Prejudice claim was apparent to all.
I then reminded you and everybody else that Lisa has been peddling the quasi-partnership guff forever.
Congratulations, you've just been beheaded.
But like the freak zombie creature you are, you come back from the dead spouting some other nonsense. Because you are a psycopath.
Now I really do have things to do.
Back again?
Oh it isn't obvious to anyone Shakes, least of all "everyone" as your psychosis compels yourself to state time and time again in order to satisfy your insatiable need to convince yourself.
So you are telling me you are victorious in our wonderfully informative chat because you referred to a case Lisa put forward? You know I am not Lisa yes? And you do realise that you make absolutely no sense whatsoever right?
You were talking about London the other day, if your theory based thought and deduction is as awful as it appears now, my City would have chewed you up and spat you out like the fantasist parasite you are. I assume you may have served myself and Lisa drinks maybe?
So again... do you believe that the Trust being the victims of unfair prejudice was something of great obscurity requiring great uncovering work?
The fact a very high profile case was being reported in April 2016 regarding the unfair prejudice at Blackpool football club is neither here nor there of course.
Consider yourself ruined yet again by a headless zombie you utter weirdo
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
