The FINALE of the Mysterious £27 million dividend.

[talkSAFT]

HaHa.
I'd given up on this Thread because Blood & Echo have twisted it to insult the writer, rather than admit to their libel, and it's quite boring. I actually received a reply from The Group's Director of Communications, who declared the suggestion as "ridiculous conspiracy-theory" and "all rubbish".
I was more than happy, as I'd told The Albion how long I'd supported them and that This Pair's insistence had soured my support (if true!). He didn't answer why The Accountant had described the £27m as "Dividends", which had convinced Blood and Echo, but it's clear from the copies of The Accounts that what WBA say is correct: "There have been NO Dividends paid out to Shareholders", and that Peace had not even been a Shareholder of Group since 2013!!!
I couldn't even be bothered to post the result of that reply on here as I hoped it had died a death, and that Dumb and Dumber had (Whoops!) realised their error, and kept their heads down. How wrong could I be.

Al, if I was you I'd just stop digging holes. You should be squirming with embarrassment over your 2 replies above. Just say "Sorry" to the fans who - like me - lost some love for The Club, believing you. An apology to The Club that you claim to love would not go amiss on here. (And don't tell us, again, that you going to Accrington makes you a big fan.)

ps Pulis left the Building a year ago - get over it!!!

[BaggieBlood]

QUOTE=talkSAFT;39006190]HaHa.
I'd given up on this Thread because Blood & Echo have twisted it to insult the writer, rather than admit to their libel, and it's quite boring. I actually received a reply from The Group's Director of Communications, who declared the suggestion as "ridiculous conspiracy-theory" and "all rubbish".
I was more than happy, as I'd told The Albion how long I'd supported them and that This Pair's insistence had soured my support (if true!). He didn't answer why The Accountant had described the £27m as "Dividends", which had convinced Blood and Echo, but it's clear from the copies of The Accounts that what WBA say is correct: "There have been NO Dividends paid out to Shareholders", and that Peace had not even been a Shareholder of Group since 2013!!!
I couldn't even be bothered to post the result of that reply on here as I hoped it had died a death, and that Dumb and Dumber had (Whoops!) realised their error, and kept their heads down. How wrong could I be.

Al, if I was you I'd just stop digging holes. You should be squirming with embarrassment over your 2 replies above. Just say "Sorry" to the fans who - like me - lost some love for The Club, believing you. An apology to The Club that you claim to love would not go amiss on here. (And don't tell us, again, that you going to Accrington makes you a big fan.)

ps Pulis left the Building a year ago - get over it!!![/QUOTE]

Put your letter on here, as like mentioned above there is no way under GDPR would the club comment on an individual in any way shape or form.

When you put it here then I will contact the club, as despite you and your tag along's assertions of "rounding up" and now your "reply" that says he did say why the accountant called it a dividend.

The accountant called it a dividend because that is what it is, not exactly a wild conspiracy theory when it is there in black and white.

If the £27m had stayed within the myriad of companies the c??? Had created to cause this confusion the term dividend would never have been used.

The money would have been taken out of that company and there would be a contra entry and explanation in the accounts of the company it went into (the parent company in normal circumstances).

The dividends were taken, the accounts clearly state that.

The only way for a person to bring that money back into one of the other companies would be to class it as capital introduced, as I mentioned before, and the accounts would reflect that introduction of capital, which is only introduced by a Shareholder if the company in question is having problems in cash flow etc, and needs an immediate funds to carry on trading.

Like I have said before I have been reading these accounts for years and have read all the accounts for years in question and there is no contra entry in any of them to show the money was moved from one to the other.

To say it was "rounded up" in an attempt to find it says it all really, even though it is clear what is conveniently being rounded up is clearly profit made by the club.

You don't just round up in accounts and you don't just put dividend in error.

These are public records there so we can see what is going on.

To suggest the c??? wasn't a shareholder says it all what you know.

Your "reply" is either from swain or the lepwoski (or whatever his name is).

Furthermore, before you label anybody dumb, look in the mirror and also a dictionary to discover the definition of libel, as to say a shareholder has taken a dividend after seeing it in the accounts isn't libel.

But, I cede to your superior legal knowledge and ask you to prove this "libel" you constantly refer to, or shut your hole.

All this b ollox, and still no realisation from this pair that if the £27m was still in the club, why would we need an overdraft.

I await both your responses from the club, then I can write my own email.

But, arrh poor little talksaft because your support of the Albion was soured from what the accounts clearly said.

It wasn't the clubby, wubby's fault, it was the greedy bald man who screwed the club, but now you have a nice little sugary sweet to takeaway the sour taste in the form of an imaginary reply.

[talkSAFT]

How long did it take you to type that, Sh itbrains?

Go find it all out for yourself as you can't understand The Accounts.
I've spent enough time trying to clear the name of a bloke I don't even know or care about, and the only reason I got onto the Club was because you'd worried me. I'm happy to report that it's simply because you don't know what you're on about.
Write to Martin Swain (which is what I did) and ask him. He'll tell you the same as he did me, though, - that he asks "that this communique remains confidential" (which is why I haven't copied-and-pasted it).

I've heard from The Funnyman, now I'm waiting for Echo's "Couldn't agree more with you, Mr. Blood".

[BaggieBlood]

How long did it take you to type that, Sh itbrains?

Go find it all out for yourself as you can't understand The Accounts.
I've spent enough time trying to clear the name of a bloke I don't even know or care about, and the only reason I got onto the Club was because you'd worried me. I'm happy to report that it's simply because you don't know what you're on about.
Write to Martin Swain (which is what I did) and ask him. He'll tell you the same as he did me, though, - that he asks "that this communique remains confidential" (which is why I haven't copied-and-pasted it).

I've heard from The Funnyman, now I'm waiting for Echo's "Couldn't agree more with you, Mr. Blood".

First you refer to me as dumb, now sh itbrains.

I have rarely acknowledged you, because mostly you talkbo I llox (change of name maybe) and never called you anything, but ironically you say you didn't give a response on this thread because of the insults to the author.

In March when I discovered this dividend, you pocket Ironside accused me of libel.

You could not be bothered to look for the accounts and repeatedly asked me to put them up on here, finally I gave you the precise details to find them, as you cannot just put a link on here.

Since then you and your cohort have tried to distort what is clear in the publicly available accounts as a dividend.

Now, cornered you fabricate a response from swain, like you cohort, announce to all what it said in it, and confirm who it was who sent and then say that he, swain, said this "communique remains confidential".

What a load of b ollox.

The author is a sad, pathetic attention seeker, you are becoming one too.

Get a grip.

[regis80]

First you refer to me as dumb, now sh itbrains.

I have rarely acknowledged you, because mostly you talkbo I llox (change of name maybe) and never called you anything, but ironically you say you didn't give a response on this thread because of the insults to the author.

In March when I discovered this dividend, you pocket Ironside accused me of libel.

You could not be bothered to look for the accounts and repeatedly asked me to put them up on here, finally I gave you the precise details to find them, as you cannot just put a link on here.

Since then you and your cohort have tried to distort what is clear in the publicly available accounts as a dividend.

Now, cornered you fabricate a response from swain, like you cohort, announce to all what it said in it, and confirm who it was who sent and then say that he, swain, said this "communique remains confidential".

What a load of b ollox.

The author is a sad, pathetic attention seeker, you are becoming one too.

Get a grip.

You know these messageboards can be such a delight at times, especially when a fight or argument breaks out. It is what I like about these boards, but sometimes it can go a bit far or there never is a final say/verdict.

I can safely say I'm in the middle here of these two sides. I've witnessed so many arguments on this board that never ever really draws to a conclusion. Nothing against you BaggieBlood/Baggie Al or you Sweeper/Talksaft - but how about I step in here as a middle man and just get to the bottom of this? I will need both sides to comply and answer my questions.. but no abuse at me folks, you'll just simply need to answer any of my questions that i'll ask you.
Just trying to bring this all to a close, i'll play Judge Judy or whatever you want to call me.

Who's in?

[BaggieBlood]

What I have wrote on here is in the company accounts in black and white.

People can believe and judge what they want.

They can continue to blame the dim-witted Gochin lai, but I felt what was in the accounts needed to be mentioned.

People can decide for themselves whether a c??? Who sold us to an idiot who couldn't spell West Bromwich Albion let alone run it for £180m, would have taken a £27m dividend, he as the main shareholder was entitled to, or left it in a hidden bank account which nobody can find and which in turn has resulted in us getting an overdraft for the first time in years.

I apologise to anybody who found this boring, but I will leave it that.

[talkSAFT]

You know these messageboards can be such a delight at times, especially when a fight or argument breaks out. It is what I like about these boards, but sometimes it can go a bit far or there never is a final say/verdict.

I can safely say I'm in the middle here of these two sides. I've witnessed so many arguments on this board that never ever really draws to a conclusion. Nothing against you BaggieBlood/Baggie Al or you Sweeper/Talksaft - but how about I step in here as a middle man and just get to the bottom of this? I will need both sides to comply and answer my questions.. but no abuse at me folks, you'll just simply need to answer any of my questions that i'll ask you.
Just trying to bring this all to a close, i'll play Judge Judy or whatever you want to call me.

Who's in?

Thanks, Cyrille.
PLEASE show the World whatever the truth is. I then expect Blood to apologise to Jeremy Peace for his libel*.
* If, of course, Sweeper, and Martin Swain, are correct.

Will you do that, Blood? What you have said on here is disgraceful if you're proved wrong. (And if you come up with "It's all a mistake anyone can make due to the terminology of the word "Dividends", that's not enough. You should be 100% certain that what you've consistently said is fact before making the claim. I - and many others - will lose my love for The Club if you should be right, and that's why it's so important.
Martin Swain asked me to keep his reply confidential - and that's what I've done!

Cyrille, you will find that Sweeper has already presented the truth, but if you as a 'mediator' can present the truth any more clearly, please do. But Blood will only believe what he wants to read, and he'll still be calling Peace a c??? !

[Albionic68]

You know these messageboards can be such a delight at times, especially when a fight or argument breaks out. It is what I like about these boards, but sometimes it can go a bit far or there never is a final say/verdict.

I can safely say I'm in the middle here of these two sides. I've witnessed so many arguments on this board that never ever really draws to a conclusion. Nothing against you BaggieBlood/Baggie Al or you Sweeper/Talksaft - but how about I step in here as a middle man and just get to the bottom of this? I will need both sides to comply and answer my questions.. but no abuse at me folks, you'll just simply need to answer any of my questions that i'll ask you.
Just trying to bring this all to a close, i'll play Judge Judy or whatever you want to call me.

Who's in?

You may have a wait on your hands if the quotes below are to be taken at face value ’80.

Sweep: “That's my final, detailed offering”.

(Finally, and thank fk for that ).

Blood: “I apologise to anybody who found this boring, but I will leave it that”.

(Apology accepted Blood, but I think you may have underestimated just how teeth pullingly fkn boring it really was ).

[sweeper5]

regis80,

I would be perfectly in agreement to you acting in the capacity you suggest. I'd much rather you took the form of Robert Rinder!!

[sweeper5]

You may have a wait on your hands if the quotes below are to be taken at face value ’80.

Sweep: “That's my final, detailed offering”.

(Finally, and thank fk for that ).

Blood: “I apologise to anybody who found this boring, but I will leave it that”.

(Apology accepted Blood, but I think you may have underestimated just how teeth pullingly fkn boring it really was ).

If you are one of those completely disinterested, then why bother to post. Just read my last paragraph again! You know, the one that starts "My apologies"