Member Info for addicknt

I fear age has dimmed your memory. You were never convinced of the need for cash and consistently denied it, and aggressively so...although you were far from alone in this respect. "We all knew it needed more!! Ha, ha, ha! No you didn't. TW was right. He'd looked at the balance sheet and cash burn (something you're not capable of) and realised where this was headed.The bank's intervention was outside of the normal course of business (it involved extra funds) and was not a given. Or do you think emergency funding is 'normal'? QPP was bust...everyone, with the exception of you and few other die-hards knew it. But I'm still at an absolute loss as to why you cannot bring yourself to accept the truth.

AEM, you've never understood this issue and you never will. The company was on its uppers, out of cash and TW was correct. It didn't go bust simply because the lenders were prepared to advance more debt to cover the wages simply as a consequence of the advanced stage of the sale discussions. Had that not happened, it was game over. You've always been wrong and it staggers me you haven't been able to grasp the truth.

I have now read the claim document from S&G and it makes very interesting reading. Fielding and, to a lesser degree, Currie, are seriously in the firing line. The court proceedings will be fascinating. However, there is also one reference that I'd like to mention. Early on in the document, they state that during the course of their negotiations in November 2014 and before it looked as if a deal would happen, S&G were offered the chance to buy a portfolio of cases. The reason for this was that QPP had 'cash flow issues' and this may be a way out. Blimey, when I think of certain people on here who argued until they were blue in the face that this wasn't the case I get a lovely glow of schadenfreude. All those endless posts from people saying TW was a moron and that I was an evil, de-ramping troll and lo and behold, I was right all along. Finally, although the defence looks pretty strong to me, particularly bearing in mind S&G's unbelievable stupidity, it may not be as clear cut as some think. I still maintain that this has out of court settlement written all over it.

jmr, yes, I'm aware of that...it was simply poor use of terminology on my behalf.

GS, it has always been my opinion that S&G had a flimsy claim(although I've not seen the prosecution case), however, I can see no link to your comment about the SFO. They are entirely separate and what RT may or may not have got up to, is not germain to this claim. The SFO takes its time.

I know, funny isn't it. There are half a dozen absolute, fully paid-up, barking loons on that page.

Buy two cats. Call one Robert and the other Terry. The rats and mice will run a mile...if they have any sense.

Sadly Marsh, life is far too short to wade through your posting history in order to support my argument. The fact is, I don't need to. You have acted as a tacit supporter of the previous regime for as long as you've posted here. You've deliberately mis-construed/misrepresented the financial facts to suit your own agenda, which is curious since I seem to recall that you claim to be a retired accountant. I've no idea why you persist with your delusions, but can only conclude you have some weird ulterior motive. Give it up old boy. Face the facts.

Oh well! I gave you the benefit of the doubt and I now realise I was mistaken...you are every bit as stupid.

GS, I know you are not as stupid as Marsh, but regardless of your subsequent protestations to the contrary, your implication is abundantly clear. I take no view: the investigation is ongoing and the fact that it's taking an appallingly long time in no way implies that charges will not eventually be brought. In the same way, it does not suggest that they will.

GS, obviously I agree; but that is most certainly not what you are implying. It is quite clear that you believe that because charges have not yet been brought, there are no charges to face. Well, eventually you may be right, but as it stands, that is not the case.

Sorry Marsh, I failed to read the rest of your utter ballcocks. You know as well as the rest of the world, that had the company not sold the pile of crap that masqueraded as a business for £650m, the company would have indeed gone bust. Read the subsequent announcements. Read the financial accounts. For heavens sake, give up your childlike defence of the indefensible; it just makes you look more stupid than is humanly possible.

GS, your inference was abundantly clear. You imagine that because no charges have yet been brought, there is nothing to answer for. Again, and just like the last remaining apologist Marsh, your support of the shower that passed as the previous BOD borders upon the insane.

Marsh, you are wrong and you know it. Give it up. The previous board did absolutely no favours to anyone and your continued support borders on the suspicious. Are you paid by them? If not, you are demonstrating an ignorance which is quite astonishing.

GS, as you well know, the SFO investigation is still ongoing, so quite obviously, no charges will have yet been bought. The implication of your post, is totally misleading.

lindoser, you are correct, he did jump on the bandwagon; but that doesn't detract from the fact he was right.He kept the light shining on QPP and exposed many of the "strange" arrangements. Btw, they didn't "win" a libel case. It was uncontested and no further action was taken. No libel was proven and no award given. I still find it astonishing that anyone would take the side of the previous management. It is totally beyond comprehension.

And by the way, if fraud is proven, the YLF claim stands a very good chance of success.

DAR, that wasn't your point. the whole thing is still under active investigation. Of course, nothing has been alleged and most certainly not yet proven, but that doesn't mean it won't be (we all have our own views on this) The point is, if fraud is proven the disclaimer is completely irrelevant...end of. The same is true of all warranties given in a sale process and any limitations imposed therein.

Dar, that warning becomes irrelevant if fraud is involved. Sorry.

"I suspect that there was some motivation for the SFO to start this action"...you can safely bet on that. "...gathering dust"...investigations are still ongoing. Dar, you also make the fair point about an action against a company whose employees were not responsible. Sadly, that's irrelevant and the name change makes no difference whatsoever. Refer to Tescos et al. email; it's not the S&G deal that's being investigated. Please refer to the background. The S&G deal is the subject of the civil law suit. And GS is correct...it could take years and even if WTG no longer exists by then, the previous directors will still be in the frame.