Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Diamandis, Dunwoody and the board  (Read 3116 times)
RobertT

Offline Offline

Posts: 12323




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 17:28:25 »

Quote from: "Barry Scott"
Quote from: "STFC Bart"
Not sure if anyone is aware but according to companies house Diamandis has 14 liquidated/dissolved/insolvent companies behind him, obviously his reason for not being a director.

Dodgy indeed


That means fuck all Bart. Within my immediate family around 10+ companies have been liquidated. Like Piemonte says, you just put some anti-diamandis Spin on it.

Liquidation is not always anything to do with mismanagement or bad business. As a business, with you being an accountant you should know this, your credit is very often extended to others.

They don't pay you, you go down. That's not the company directors fault, that's the fault of the wankers which fail to pay their bills to you.

In construction it's common place, massive building work takes place, invoices are issued, payments are not made. Company then has difficultly meeting it's own payments, company is privately limited, therefore company gets liquidated.

I do not know what his 14 businesses were or what they did, but sure as hell he wouldn't put himself through the hell that is liquidation 14 times. I suspect they just ceased trading or were wound up for various other reasons.


Agree with the sentiment that it's normally not "dodgy", it's just a business hitting bad times or having bad decisions made for it.  However I do believe it's why he was banned from being a Director.
Logged
Barry Scott

Offline Offline

Posts: 9134




« Reply #16 on: Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 17:38:28 »

Quote from: "RobertT"

Agree with the sentiment that it's normally not "dodgy", it's just a business hitting bad times or having bad decisions made for it.  However I do believe it's why he was banned from being a Director.


Perhaps you're right, but on the flip side one of my family members was once banned and threatened with jail for fraudulent activities.

They were straight and down the line and took years to clear their name because of the under handed acts of others. I've seen it and i've experienced it first hand. If someone is going to commit fraud through a company, they go for it in a big and blatant way and hope to get the fuck out with everything they can.

That doesn't look like Diamandis to me, and i can't see why he'd be so trusted by SSW.

Tbf though, i know little about him, and i love playing devils advocate.  Cheesy
Logged
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker

Offline Offline

Posts: 36336




« Reply #17 on: Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 19:33:59 »

Quote from: "STFC Bart"
Piemonte you dont need to quote accounts to me- i am an accountant

Just because it shows a loss and negative net worth does not mean that he is not creaming money from us. That loss could have been 1-2m worse, and the negative net worth even higher.

Effectively they are trading whilst knowingly insolvent


Actually if you have a look the loss is entirely made up of depreciation. This is just a way of writing off a capital expenditure into the accounts as revenue expenditure in line with the use you get from the asset(s).

In other words it is an accounting figure and is not an actual loss of any money or expense that you would have to pay for.

The company has made losses in prior years that have resulted from the activities of the business though.
Logged
herthab
TEF Travel

Offline Offline

Posts: 12020





Ignore
« Reply #18 on: Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 19:40:19 »

What money would he be creaming off the club? As it stands I believe we are running at a loss due to operating costs being higher than revenue.
The club have no money of their own.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise that last season, with our crap gates, we ran at a deficit.

Maybe he's nicking the money from the coffee machine, or the Christmas club money, like Arthur Fowler.

If he was a criminal mastermind, surely he'd be trying to pinch money from a club thats got some..........................
Logged

It's All Good..............
RobertT

Offline Offline

Posts: 12323




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 19:46:31 »

I think the claim often banded about relates to the volume of contracts the club has through Dunwoody, such as Marketing, Programmes and staff that we pay for (but I think we don't actually pay for the staff).

Not commenting on the details as I don't know them and aside from the auditor nobody ever will.

The "dodgy" issue for us is that our accounts were not signed off properly by the auditor - insufficient evidence to confirm a trua and fair reflection I think was the jist of the wording.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: