Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:42 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

right, so not one calculation but two. the first is the deduction of half the funds, ie £1000 in your example, the second calculation is what to do with the deduction. pay it into a player benevolent fund, dish it out to the academies, buy Nigel a pie worthy of the man. So we did have the correct amount deducted, we were excluded from the divvy up. So we were not done out of any money other than morally. Consider it the same distinction between how much tax Her Majesty deducts from us, and what she spends it on. I don't get my share spent on me, thats for sure.

Completely wrong.

The Sky money is a finite and definite sum, to be divided equally.
If 12 clubs on equal shares, you divide it by 12. There is no balance.
Each club gets 8.33% (ignoring pennies)

If 12 clubs NOT on equal shares, but one club is to get half of what the rest get, you just need to divide it unequally, but so our share is half of others' share.

That's easy.

They get 8.7%, we get half that, 4.35%

Your argument is that after making the elementary arithmetical mistake, and thus leaving a "balance" that should never exist, the resulting error is somehow miraculously converted from being Sky money, to something else. And that now the clubs can divvy it, because it isn't Sky money any more!

How did it suddenly cease to be Sky money?

In any case, the argument simply doesn't wash. "Distributions" means all sums payable to a club in all comps, and the specific deal was "50% of the distributions received by other (SL) clubs".

So even if it did miraculously cease to be Sky money, it was still distributed, and we were still entitled to our share of that distribution.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Nov 25, 2016 9:33 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

My original request was to see a copy of the agreement, which would clarify whether it should be referred to as a years deduction (the popular but not necessarily correct view) or as you say, 50% of the distributions received by other SL clubs (of which you are the only significant proponent). Whichever it is, OK signed up for it, as the copy of the agreement will show. Or are you suggesting that OK was stupid enough to be duped into 50% of distributions and only twigged later?

I am not a "proponent" of anything but a simple stater of the facts. I have quoted you the relevant part of the agreement too. If you won't take it for what it is (fact) then it's a bit strange of you but I frankly couldn't care less. Like faked moon landings or a non-flat earth, you are free to believe in or doubt whatever you like.

Although I am sure the substantial majority of those taking an interest know it was half money for 2 seasons, so it may be just you.

It can be referred to as deduction of a year's money, because in amount and principle, that's what it was, AND it can be referred to as 50% of distrib. x 2 years, because that was the only concession they were prepared to make (presumably realising that it was lunacy to even imagine a club existing for Year 1 with zero money).

Also, how could you possibly think I was suggesting OK was "duped", when I have many times explained that the Sky deduction thing was dropped on his toes at the very last minute, and he had a stark choice to accept it, or walk away and let the club fold. "Put on the spot" is the phrase you are looking for. The fact we have a club now, precarious though it is, is because of his acceptance.

I await with interest the first peep out of the RFL as to whether they are going to rob the new entity (assuming there is one) of a year's funding, or whether that was just a one-off special. If yes, then the new owner to escape 12 points will need to pay off somewhere north of £1.5m, and have 50% less money in the first 2 years. (And, I wouldn't be surprised, be on the share of the bottom club, and not one which finished 4th).

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sat Nov 26, 2016 9:10 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I am not a "proponent" of anything but a simple stater of the facts. I have quoted you the relevant part of the agreement too. If you won't take it for what it is (fact) then it's a bit strange of you but I frankly couldn't care less. Like faked moon landings or a non-flat earth, you are free to believe in or doubt whatever you like.

Although I am sure the substantial majority of those taking an interest know it was half money for 2 seasons, so it may be just you.

.

You are the only person to bore us with the claim that the deal was half the distribution of the other clubs, and all I have done is ask you to substantiate this claim, which you are now reduced to trying to do by saying "everybody knows". ie tittle-tattle, chinese whispers, call it what you want, not evidence.

On the other hand the one bit of third party evidence I have found is that the deal was a reduction of 50% of the funding received from Central Funding for two years, with absolutely no reference to other clubs distributions.

Which is exactly what everybody understands, and so there is no need for 10 year olds to do irrelevant sums about whether we should have had one eighth or one seventh of the central funds, as you have been claiming, but carry on trying to do it yourself as you need more practice, but keep it to yourself, we did the calculation years ago.

My sympathy is with OK, do not mix up my criticism of your delusions with criticism of OK. Whatever it cost him will never be known, how do you calculate the loss in value of a property in a fire sale? or to emphasise the point, properties.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sat Nov 26, 2016 11:00 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

You are the only person to bore us with the claim that the deal was half the distribution of the other clubs,

Not a claim, but the fact.

martinwildbull wrote:

On the other hand the one bit of third party evidence I have found is that the deal was a reduction of 50% of the funding received from Central Funding for two years, with absolutely no reference to other clubs distributions.

Then your "evidence" is mistaken. But even so, you could use what passes for your brain to ask yourself, "50% OF WHAT?". Though I get that sums aren't your strong suit. Maybe you could ask a 10 year old.

martinwildbull wrote:

...do not mix up my criticism of your delusions ...

Logic not a strength either, then? You don't actually know what was agreed; so you can't accuse me of delusions as, however much it upsets you, you have to concede I might be right, even if you congenitally refuse to believe it. So it is illogical and nonsensical for you to claim it is "delusions", Can you follow that? Perhaps not, but it would be good brain training for you to at least try.

And now I'll thank you to stop trying to turn yet another thread into the latest version of your personal vendetta. If you carry on I'd hope your comments would be removed rather than the thread locked, as it's a good one, apart from your histrionics.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sat Nov 26, 2016 10:49 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Not a claim, but the fact.

Then your "evidence" is mistaken. But even so, you could use what passes for your brain to ask yourself, "50% OF WHAT?". Though I get that sums aren't your strong suit. Maybe you could ask a 10 year old.

Logic not a strength either, then? You don't actually know what was agreed; so you can't accuse me of delusions as, however much it upsets you, you have to concede I might be right, even if you congenitally refuse to believe it. So it is illogical and nonsensical for you to claim it is "delusions", Can you follow that? Perhaps not, but it would be good brain training for you to at least try.

And now I'll thank you to stop trying to turn yet another thread into the latest version of your personal vendetta. If you carry on I'd hope your comments would be removed rather than the thread locked, as it's a good one, apart from your histrionics.

So to summarise the discussion so far:

You assert that the funding agreed to receive was half the amount of other clubs. You have been asked several times to provide evidence to that effect, and the only evidence offered is that you know it. No document, just hearsay.

I, the rest of this forum, the press, the rest of the world, and the man with a financial incentive for you to be right, all say you are wrong, and that the agreement was a 50% reduction in the central distribution funding for two years. We know that what OK agreed to came to pass, otherwise we would have heard about this devious fraud from him, not from you.

To me the real crime against OK in the agreement was that, should the club go under in the first two years, he would pay back all the distributions made, and signed a personal guarantee to support it. so not just half, but no central distributions. No wonder he was trying to sell anything he could at whatever price he could to avoid such a demand. And yet you bleat on about a spurious calculation that you cannot substantiate.

It really does amuse me that, when you are trapped in the web of your own trolling hearsay, you start the argumentum ad hominem stuff. The only way out of this one is evidence, then our discussion is complete. Provide the document and I will gladly agree that you are right, because that is all I have been asking for all this time. Prove me wrong or shut up.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sun Nov 27, 2016 2:57 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

So to summarise the discussion so far:

You assert that the funding agreed to receive was half the amount of other clubs. You have been asked several times to provide evidence to that effect, and the only evidence offered is that you know it. No document, just hearsay.

I, the rest of this forum, the press, the rest of the world, and the man with a financial incentive for you to be right, all say you are wrong, and that the agreement was a 50% reduction in the central distribution funding for two years.

What i quoted, and I quote, was:
""Distributions" means all sums payable to a club in all comps, and the specific deal was "50% of the distributions received by other (SL) clubs""

That is of course exactly the same thing as a 50% reduction in the central distribution for two years", if we get a half (50%) of the distribution other clubs get (100%)

I have no clue what you are therefore on about. If they get double what we get, then we got 50%. If they get MORE than double what we get (which they did) then obviously we ain't getting 50%.

You are convoluting a non-argument.

martinwildbull wrote:

To me the real crime against OK in the agreement was that, should the club go under in the first two years, he would pay back all the distributions made, and signed a personal guarantee to support it. .

That was bad too, I certainly agree.

martinwildbull wrote:

No wonder he was trying to sell anything he could at whatever price he could to avoid such a demand.

Not sure wnat you mean. he resigned due to ill health, and sold his shares. That should have been that. However, the buyers reneged on the deal.

martinwildbull wrote:

And yet you bleat on about a spurious calculation that you cannot substantiate.
It really does amuse me that, when you are trapped in the web of your own trolling hearsay, you start the argumentum ad hominem stuff.

No, you said I was having delusions, that is ad hom. It is expected from you btw., you have a long track record of shameless ad hom rants. And explaining something in arithmetical terms, precisely and succinctly, isn't "bleating on". Nor is the calculation "spurious", it is simple, and shows that we received LESS than the agreed sum. Whichever way you count it.

martinwildbull wrote:

The only way out of this one is evidence, then our discussion is complete. Provide the document and I will gladly agree that you are right, because that is all I have been asking for all this time. Prove me wrong or shut up.

"Way out"?! You need a way out, not me! The difference is, I know the facts and you're guessing. In fact, hoisting you by your own petard, YOU prove ME wrong, or shut up. You can't, and this is why you're off on one of your rants. You should calm down, it can't be doing your blood pressure any good.

PS Anyone producing documents to you would do no good at all, as if they didn't suit your "argument" (with apologies to actual arguments everywhere) then you'd just say it was Photoshopped or faked.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sun Nov 27, 2016 10:50 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

What i quoted, and I quote, was:
""Distributions" means all sums payable to a club in all comps, and the specific deal was "50% of the distributions received by other (SL) clubs""

That is of course exactly the same thing as a 50% reduction in the central distribution for two years", if we get a half (50%) of the distribution other clubs get (100%)

I have no clue what you are therefore on about. If they get double what we get, then we got 50%. If they get MORE than double what we get (which they did) then obviously we ain't getting 50%.

You are convoluting a non-argument.

That was bad too, I certainly agree.

Not sure wnat you mean. he resigned due to ill health, and sold his shares. That should have been that. However, the buyers reneged on the deal.

No, you said I was having delusions, that is ad hom. It is expected from you btw., you have a long track record of shameless ad hom rants. And explaining something in arithmetical terms, precisely and succinctly, isn't "bleating on". Nor is the calculation "spurious", it is simple, and shows that we received LESS than the agreed sum. Whichever way you count it.


"Way out"?! You need a way out, not me! The difference is, I know the facts and you're guessing. In fact, hoisting you by your own petard, YOU prove ME wrong, or shut up. You can't, and this is why you're off on one of your rants. You should calm down, it can't be doing your blood pressure any good.

PS Anyone producing documents to you would do no good at all, as if they didn't suit your "argument" (with apologies to actual arguments everywhere) then you'd just say it was Photoshopped or faked.

Ah, the infamous FA shuffle. It usually follows your argumentum ad hominem defence. If you can't abuse them, try and confuse them by pretending that you have been stating their point all along.

I found the source, it was not presented to me. It is in the public domain, presented by someone that has to have PI insurance to put it into the public domain, unlike you.

Based on that source we got 50% of the distributions we would have normally received. That is £1000 in your example. You claim that this is the same as 50% of the other clubs distributions. It is not. in your example that is £8000 / 7, which is £1142.89. And yet you say that these are the same. Anybody that says that £1000 is the same as £1142.89 is clearly deluded.

If you were right, the discrepancy was actionable, and yet I have not seen anything about OK taking proceedings against anybody for this missing money.

So, please provide evidence for your assertion that £1000 is the same as £1142.89.

FA v Martin : Mon Nov 28, 2016 12:26 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

Ah, the infamous FA shuffle. It usually follows your argumentum ad hominem defence. If you can't abuse them, try and confuse them by pretending that you have been stating their point all along.

I found the source, it was not presented to me. It is in the public domain, presented by someone that has to have PI insurance to put it into the public domain, unlike you.

Based on that source we got 50% of the distributions we would have normally received. That is £1000 in your example. You claim that this is the same as 50% of the other clubs distributions. It is not. in your example that is £8000 / 7, which is £1142.89. And yet you say that these are the same. Anybody that says that £1000 is the same as £1142.89 is clearly deluded.

If you were right, the discrepancy was actionable, and yet I have not seen anything about OK taking proceedings against anybody for this missing money.

So, please provide evidence for your assertion that £1000 is the same as £1142.89.

I am not stating your point. You are changing yours, and contriving actually quite pathetic arithmetical straw men. I have made a specific statement and repeated it. It won't change as it is the fact. Your arithmetic sucks, that's all. That or you're too innumerate to see how the problem arises in the first place. (Oh and I of course already have a copy of the administrator's report which you think is your "evidence", too. This being the same administrator that OK took to court to prove they couldn't get the maths right either, to get the correct sums put into the administration... proceedings I presume you'll have missed )

"Normally received" does not enter the wording anywhere at any point. I'm happy to split the thread if anyone can be arrsed doing it. Anyone bored by this then sorry, but I am not having MWB trying to alter history, I will correct his mistakes as long as necessary. Otherwise the "last word" will be his incorrect version, and I don't see why that should be the case.

Re: FA v Martin : Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:13 pm  

I must confess that I am a little bit scunnered at the existence of this thread.

Even back in the "good old days" when I actually gave FA a decent debate we never got the honour of our very on thread. All I got was grumpy mods telling me to quit it and threatening bans.

Fair enough, we had a few barnies but at least they were reasonably readable and entertaining, unlike this dirge here. We all know that FA is a wind-up merchant but I do find it quite concerning the level of obsession MWB actually has with him. Is he trying to make a name for himself or something?

I reckon even the 'vark misses me.

Re: FA v Martin : Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:54 am  

Love you man
So far as I am concerned, this thread is for everyone who wants to join in, (so, er, nobody else, then? ) and you are very welcome, asinine though your contributions will doubtless be.

I have a tale for you.

Suppose you have a rich uncle. (I know, I know, but bear with me)
Every year he gives your mum various sums of money, to distribute in equal shares between you and you sister, Munnigrabba.

She's not very good at sums, and so she takes advice from her mate, let's call him "Martin".

One year, the sums to be distributed come to £12. Martin struggles with the sums for a week or so, but eventually contacts your mum, and says "Give them £6 each".

Turns out you've been a very naughty boy, though. So the family decide that next year, you're only getting half what your sister gets. Let's assume the total remains £12.

This is hard for Martin. But eventually, he has the solution:
a) One share is £6
b) So half a share is £3. Give Eddie £3.
So she does.

Martin's phone rings. It's your mum. "Martin, I gave them the money like you said, but I've still got £3. What do I do with that?"

Martin cannot understand where the £3 came from. But, he toils manfully with the problem for a fortnight. Then he rings back. "Haven't got a clue. I suggest you pretend it was never part of the money to be distributed, and let all the siblings except Eddie vote on what to do with it."

So the vote is taken. In a major shock of Trumpesque proportions, Munnigrabba votes "Give it all to me". Thus, this year, you get your £3. But Munnigrabba gets £9.

You complain to Uncle Martin, and say "but she was supposed to get twice the money I got. Not treble". £9 is three times £3, so of the £12, I have only got 25% and she has got 75%."

"Fsck off, sonny", replies Uncle Martin, "you're delusional."