Or mayber he's planning on turning the vic into a cinema erotic dancing experience venue durin the week, yes i'm on the sherberrt
Well I was driving home yesterday and there was a flyer on a roundabout advertsing a Soul disco night at the ground (anyone else heard about that? I'm sure I didn't imagine that)
OK, I get your point - Baz has conveniently "avoided his previous liabilities with some good advice". Wow that's good ...... What if he repeats the trick with us in a few years time?
Well no, actually that is not my point, you do have a remarkable ability to reinterpret things to suit your view. My point was just to try and explain generally how someone could still have recourse to a large amount of funds having previously being made bankrupt. So don't tell me what my point is when, as usual, you do not have a clue as to what it is. Further, those types of trusts are set up by the original owner of the assets i.e. his family and they are extremely common, and perfectly legal under the law they are not 'tricks'. See s. 33 of the Trustee Act 1925. If you want me to explain the long words let me know.
mmm, thanks for the sarcasm and thanks for the links to the legal bits. You should know my style by now - reduce "complications" down to the simple basic level, where debt is described as debt and sharp practice is shown up. What you have shown me is that there is a plausable answer to my first main question (where did Baz get his money from), and now that hurdle has been cleared I can move on. However, who around here feels comfortable with our new owner? Now that it appears he is a "financially mobile character", I can understand his entrance at Watford. And really who can say they TRUST our new owner? All this blunder and sets of numbers are really interesting, but no-one in their right minds is going to put £20m into Watford FC, considering everything I estimated the clubs value at £18m in the spring once our Championship survival was assured for another season. Rightly or wrongly I trusted Lord Ashcroft and Jack Petchey on day 1 of their regimes, but I look on and I can't say that about Baz. I don't want to bamboozle this board with talk of investment trusts etc.
Bradleysdad--of course it is possible that Mr B is richer then we thought, and that his wealth (uncontroversially) comes from family trusts . Rich people do (prudently) shelter their wealth in trusts, and Mr B might have done that, even while going bankrupt. Nothing reprehensible or even unusual, about that--though the creditors who suffered when his hotel went bankrupt might find it annoying. But if that is so, why is he still coy about revealing it? It is not shameful nor commercially sensitive. By keeping the source and scale of his wealth secret, he just invites speculation, which he could end by being up-front. I guess secrecy is part of his nature, just as a gambling streak was part of Simpson's nature, and control-freakery and love of plotting part of the Russo's nature. Let us hope this character trait in Mr B does not lead us into a crisis once again, as it did with these other owners. The character and personality of the owner is critical to the success or failure of an owner -managed business such as Watford F.C.--which why Mr B's character is a matter of interest--and concern. But we will never find out more about the source and scale of his wealth now--he clearly does not want to tell us, so we can stop asking. Although the recent WO interview raised as many questions as it answered it does at last give us yardsticks to judge him by. So,from now on I will judge him in small stepping stones: 5 new players by the start of the season, a start on the SW corner by Oct , survival in this division by May---all without him going bankrupt or the club going into administration. After that...well his more ambitious aspirations remain on the table, but one step at a time.
Elixir I think you under estimate the intelligence on this board! I take your point on trusting Baz , I still have a gut feeling that all is not right, no links ,no logical reasoning , just a gut feeling that I hope is wrong! To be fair he started badly but maybe under guidance from GT has improved has made the right noises and started to back up his words! What concerns me was the unpaid bills that he had to pay off! certain parallels with Pompey down that road! If we manage to get the promised players in to help our survival in this league ,whilst bringing down the debt ,I dont think there is much we can moan about!
i can't see us getting 5 more...i think what he's saying is..that's what he'd like to get in. In other words, telling us what we want to hear, but leaving it open to fail. But, if all the irons in the fire that Sean was talking about yesterday stay alight, that'd be rather cool.
No worries, Elixir; and sorry about the end of that comment. Its been a long month so far and I'm tired. Funnily enough, like you I had more trust in Ashcroft. I really don't think he would have let us go to the wall and he had the money to prevent it. But in a way that is one I'm a bit relaxed about the current set-up because from memory my understanding of the deal is that there are quite a few safety nets in there which would revert the club back to Ashcroft. (He does in effect still have a lot of money invested in the club.) It seems to me he has protected his investment and indirectly protected the club from any hair-brained schemes. Moving on, and as an aside, is it fair to judge him by the 5 players claim? As we all know transfers are not easy and there are a lot of variables. If we seriously go in for 5 players I'll be happy, even if we don't get them all. I'd rather that than just sign 5 randoms just so we have met a target.
