Quote: LeagueDweeb "He 'thought' he had sold his shares? No money changed hands. Payments were allegedly missed because, unbelievably, some of the potential buyers ckaim to have uncovered financial information that differed from what they had been told. '"
The reasons WHY the payment was not made differ depending whom you ask. The FACT that the deferred payment wasn't made is what is relevant.
Quote: LeagueDweeb "Given that Whitcut was one of the potential buyers who had been in charge of the running of the club, |I find this a little curious. He withheld information from himself? '"
I have never argued that any information was withheld. Given those making that allegation had been involved for some time in the day to day running of the club it is not easy to accept. But as it is not my case, why are you stating it in response to me?
Quote: LeagueDweeb "There never was any legal action instigated against the potential purchasers, and there is non ongoing.'"
You're either a liar, or an idiot. Why do you come up with yet another claim, as if you knew, of something which is just untrue? Does it make you feel big or something?
Quote: LeagueDweeb "A simple cock up that shares weren't transferred? '"
Yes.
Quote: LeagueDweeb "There is no evidence on record to support your £1m figure. It's based on nothing more that hearsay and conjecture.'"
There is evidence on the record of the creditors' meeting and in the hands of the administrator. As I have stated more than once before, OK produced his evidence to the meeting and the administrator accepted it to the tune oif around £1m. This is "fact", not "conjecture" nor "hearsay". I am intrigued as to what purpose, other than getting wet, your continued sing into the wind is serving.
