Dispute between Ipswich Town and.........

Typical bluetit, aren't you?

I'v commented twice. Why would I need to do him a favour, he handles it pretty well by himself.

Tit.

 

So itiwran it's okay for me to be abused in posts 171&173 and others, but I am not allowed to post in a similar vein, and speak about people posting bullshit and lies to back up their argument, then being called a hypocrite in another post!

You accuse me of being abusive, well isn't that tough, the Cardiff fans on here are the ones who resort to the gutter when they have no answers, my excellent posts only show you up for what you are, jealous of the success of swansea city, and no matter where we post you want to be a part of it

 

Well said Jager, well said.

 

Please stop putting words into my mouth to suit your argument.

Not once did I ever say or imply swansea owe the council rent.

Prophet said that swansea not paying rent has an adverse effect on other services run by the council because they have no money. You said this was irrelevant and all I said was that if swansea hadn't used a highly unusual business practice to avoid paying rent, the council would have more money. Hardly implying it's a debt is it? I accept that you don't owe them any money, as I have said numerous times, but that doesn't suit your argument, so you conveniently gloss over that fact every time you respond.

You can twist the facts all you want, but there is one fact that you have overlooked: You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, which is clearly proven by all the made up bullshit you use to "prove" what you are trying to claim.

The only people I have ever claimed you owed money to were Ipswich and you paid them, thus proving that the debt existed. No matter what you say, deep down you know you have been ripped to shreds by myself and many other posters on our boards. The fact that you won't admit it only goes to further prove how biased/stupid/dishonest you really are.

 

Lukey,
do you work within the social services because you have an amazing knowledge of people with mental problems.

 

Lukey boy I mixed you up with prophet cheese boy, to which I am sorry, it's hard to tell which kairdifff fan abused me last, and which one posted their bullshit to back up their crap

Now I am not being dishonest , I leave that to cheese boy, he likes posting lies and misinformation , you just post rehashed crap that is all, all backed up with well nothing , the only thing you get right is that there is no rental agreement between the swans and council, hence no debt or falling behind with payments, so I give you credit for that.

 

If you feel abused you have a very simple answer to that.

Stay on the Jacks board.

 

Tell me where I have lied? Because you choose not to believe it, well that doesn't make it untrue.

 

You really are deluded, a complete and utter moron

 

Oh dear, some things never change, how the hell is this thread still going??...............

please log in to view this image

 

Admin twice ? Blatant lie despite me telling you it's not true, now come back when you find proof

 

Going for 400 posts on this one phil, the bluebells are seriously in meltdown with my spectaular posts on here, it will take them that long to understand the error of their ways, must be the cricked necks of looking up at their betters lol

 

please log in to view this image

Plastic swans

 

Rhondda - Keep the advertising up mate.

please log in to view this image

He's halfway there.

 

Hit a nerve there did I

Plastic

 

Jager, it's not a blatant lie and you know it, because you know what Prohet means. He means that on two separate occasions the football club known as Swansea Town/City renaged on the debts it owed to people.
You can dress it up any way you want, use legal language to show that it wasn't administration, and that it was all done corrextly, but the fact remains they welched on their debts.
Tell me they didn't. Tell me every debt to every creditor, big firm or little trader was pain in full. you cannot! Never mind a court agreed this or that or comensated x pence in the pound, they never paid what they owed.
OK it was a different administration, so was the one at Cardiff that owed the taxman but the new one settled the bill in full, and all the others are being settled as they are clarified. 100 pence in the pound.
Never mind the bull and the speud- legal jargon, the club didn't pay, so it shouldn't be in existence.
If they took the name they took the responsibility, thats why I said the should have a new name. I suggested gower Renagers but I was just being polite.
Any decent non-plastic fan would hang his head in shame at your wriggling.
go away!

 

Nope the previous owners of the club did not pay what was due, dress it in which ever you want, those debts had nothing to do with the current owners, you want us to pay for something not owned.

Give you a scenario , you buy a repossessed house from an auction, you pay for it, your name is jones and as it happens so was the other owners, you move in and you have people chasing for debts you as the new owners obviously you are not liable for these debts, so you do the right and prove you don't owe this money.

Transfer that to a business where you buy the going concern from the previous owners, you are not therefore liable to pay past creditors as they are not your debts.

I am sorry you have completely no idea what you are talking about, but that is your failing , I am not calling you stupid like some bluebird fans are calling me, but your lack of knowledge in the most basic concept of business is making you look idiotic .

 

Ok so you give an example of house buying but when you buy a business you also take on its debt, correct? Isn't that why Woolworths was up for sale for £1 because of the millions in debt also attached?

Now I'm far from a business expert, I just want to know what's different between these 2 situations.

Buying a house and buying a business are 2 completely different legal matters.

EDIT:

In fact I'm sure it is. In your example, the debt is attached to the people previously living in that house, not the house. In my example, the debt is attached to the business.

 

Nope the previous owners of the club did not pay what was due at last you admit it.

dress it in which ever you want, those debts had nothing to do with the current owners But it had something to do with Swansea Town/City FC

 

Rhondda where in any post have I said that they were paid either partly or in full ? Link quotes here with me saying that ! A cva gives a percentage of money back, admin virtually gives nothing unless there are assets!

Also my example gives you a scenario , in which the previous owners are responsible for debts, not the current owners, in fact the new owners of the club did creditors a favour, they could have put the club full in admin paid sod all and came back as Swansea City 2003 Ltd , kinda like Leeds did , and still retained a league position as the admin laws in football did not exist back then!

But to say that the club ripped people off is crap, as it's not true they paid what can be afforded a decade or so back!