kowenicki

Yes it still means it's cash rich. Whatever makes you feel better sweetheart.

Exactly.

Very clear to me. I'm struggling to see the problem here.

You couldn't have known so I'll let it go, but it is a regulatory requirement. Don't sweat it.

Hello??? Ha ha haaa.

Same old same old. Priceless timing. I'll be humble and say nowt. Great work by the club again. On a roll this last week or two.

Cash rich pal.

Aren't they? I suggest you read the post earlier referring to Chris Moore. That is EXACTLY what is being inferred.

Fair enough. Now who has the database of the contributors to the fund raiser and who originally held the money?

Which it says in the quote, However, if after advertisement of the petition directors have acted 'wrongly' prior to petition being enforced then it would come out at enforcement. Your last paragraph is a bit silly. Not taking season ticket sales when the season could never start would be a correct action and wouldn't worsen creditors position as they would have to refund them anyway. No, taking them could actually be fraudulent trading which, again as you will no doubt know, is far worse (harder to prove but far worse).

People are getting the wrong end of my stick here. Ooer. I'm not excusing the club from acting properly or honestly. If the club is acting dishonestly or in an underhand way then that is awful, unacceptable and they should be rebuked publicly and noisily. If, however, there is zero proof then people of trust should not be speculating or rumour mongering. That is not helpful and not healthy for the future.

Taking season ticket monies for next season if WUP still proceeding would be very serious. What happens after a petition advertisement? The bank will usually find out and freeze the company’s bank account to stop any sale of assets or ‘wrongdoing’ by the directors. This can be hugely detrimental to the business and can stop it trading. The official receiver or appointed liquidator will investigate the director’s activities and actions once the Court has ordered a WUP. They will look to see if there has been any fraudulent activity or ‘wrongful trading.’ The directors may be personally liable for debt if it’s proved they made the creditors’ position worse after it became insolvent.

2k is very expensive? Ok then.

What? Yes really. I'm not disclosing all on a forum so some numpty (not you) can get all big and clever. Anyhow. You stated you reported it but was told no result would be forthcoming due to data protection. who did you report it to and when?

Very naive. I am a director in the financial world with a business turning over more than Latics does. Fair enough. You know best.

Which we knew. I'm permanently conscious of our finances and their perilous state, as is every Latics fan. Have been for over 20 years.

I've said as much as anyone else then.. shall I make it easier for you. I clearly said the following. Is a WUP usually used as a big stick to force payment? Is it fraudulent to take funds when you know you can't fulfil an order? Is it the trusts duty to act if they feel that such fraudulent activity is taking place?

Who has the database of people who contributed?

So if someone says things are ok then they definitely aren't. Ok... "I am the messiah!" A WUP can be the first step toward liquidation. Far more commonly, as you surely well know, it's a very big stick to make a company cough up. Look, If you genuinely believe what you say then the company would be trading illegally and you should report it. If the company is taking monies in full knowledge of impending liquidation and is therefore never going to be able to fulfil the order then that is fraudulent. I keep asking. Am I wrong in anything I say here?

So do you blame the trust too, they knew, did they communicate it immediately? Both as bad as each other.

Try try and try again. Demand a meeting. Better that than just saying stuff on a forum. Am I wrong?

Those aren't new facts. As senior reps of the trust why don't you ask questions, demand a meeting. Instead of winding up a forum. I'm not intent on playing down "for some reason".., there you go again with your inferred Machiavellian conspiracy talk. I am struggling to know why you would rather peddle some agenda on a forum than try, try and try again to engage with the club.

Who originally held the money from the donations? The club or the trust?

Agreed that is very poor. The trust know too, so they can communicate it can't they? I know, you know.

Making me aware of what? The point is are they concerned because they know something or because they don't. If they don't then they should try and find out and not start rumours or get involved in conjecture on a forum.