Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:23 am  

Again there's a cock up and again Duffy is for some reason being blamed. Either he runs absolutely every department within the club, or people just like to blame him.

Incidentally, I have no clue what he is or isn't involved with or if he is or isn't to blame for anything, but I'd be amazed if absolutely everything was his fault.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:27 am  

Is this the 'smoking gun' that 'Nestegg' has been hinting at for the past two months?

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:50 am  

So, what's the downside? If there was no licence, was everything taxable then? I assume.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:06 pm  

Highlander wrote:

So, what's the downside? If there was no licence, was everything taxable then? I assume.

Yeah that's the bit I'm unclear on. Presumably some liability will fall on the current regime as they took over the same company effectively, but I wouldn't have a clue what that would be. It seems the license isn't expensive, so you'd have to assume in this case whoever made the balls up, it was out of ineptitude rather than the usual penny pinching.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:11 pm  

DILLIGAF wrote:

I've a fair idea I know who at least a few of the group are. It's a group that's been around for a long time with different people being involved, but if my hunch is correct (and I've certainly seen things to suggest it is), you're certainly not a million miles away with that. Not trying to be all "cloak and dagger" like they are, but just don't want to make accusations without any real evidence to back it up.


Thirded. I've only just read the last couple of pages and the exact same thought had occurred to me. I generally believe anyone who's backing them up or heralding them is one of them anyway though (especially when they have very few posts or new accounts).

TBH I've got my suspicions as to who at least one of them is. Since Nesteggs announced departure from the forums ( not including the obvious new accounts their now posting under) a certain person linked to club has become very vocal on social media making negative comments about new regime. Doesn't seem a coincidence to me.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:37 pm  

mat wrote:

TBH I've got my suspicions as to who at least one of them is. Since Nesteggs announced departure from the forums ( not including the obvious new accounts their now posting under) a certain person linked to club has become very vocal on social media making negative comments about new regime. Doesn't seem a coincidence to me.

Who has become vocal? I have been told who one of them are, not sure if true tho.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:40 pm  

paulwalker71 wrote:

Is this the 'smoking gun' that 'Nestegg' has been hinting at for the past two months?

If this is the smoking gun it's hardly gonna have much of an impact. So they didn't have a license, this gives the council cause to investigate the illegal lottery that was being operated. This would include finding out the number of members and their contributions to the lottery, evidence that the lottery took place, numbers drawn etc., disbursement of monies won to the rightful winners. Now if any of that looks fishy then we would probably be in far more brown stuff than just simply forgetting to apply for a license. For all intents and purposes it is likely to be that they forgot to apply because of all the otehr things that were going on, but ran the lottery in accordance with normal lottery procedures. In that case, I doubt the club is in that much trouble really. If on the other hand there has been payments to winners withheld or evidence of impropriety during the lottery process then I'd assume we'd be in far more trouble.

In sum I doubt that this is big enough to be a huge concern. So unless the Pestegg et al are referring to something else as the major announcement in the middle of November, this is probably yet another trademark nestegg squib of the damp variety.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:43 pm  

The licence costs between £20 and £50. I confess I don't know the ins and outs but surely not paying this tidgy amount by mistake or even on purpose is an exceedingly small misdemeanor. Unless I'm missing something?

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:07 pm  

DrFeelgood wrote:

If this is the smoking gun it's hardly gonna have much of an impact. So they didn't have a license, this gives the council cause to investigate the illegal lottery that was being operated. This would include finding out the number of members and their contributions to the lottery, evidence that the lottery took place, numbers drawn etc., disbursement of monies won to the rightful winners. Now if any of that looks fishy then we would probably be in far more brown stuff than just simply forgetting to apply for a license. For all intents and purposes it is likely to be that they forgot to apply because of all the otehr things that were going on, but ran the lottery in accordance with normal lottery procedures. In that case, I doubt the club is in that much trouble really. If on the other hand there has been payments to winners withheld or evidence of impropriety during the lottery process then I'd assume we'd be in far more trouble.

In sum I doubt that this is big enough to be a huge concern. So unless the Pestegg et al are referring to something else as the major announcement in the middle of November, this is probably yet another trademark nestegg squib of the damp variety.

Running what to all intents and purposes is an illegal gambling operation! Yeah, nothing to worry about. Add in the Pensions stuff and there's likely 2 Government Regulators on the club's back.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:23 pm  

Mr Dog wrote:

Running what to all intents and purposes is an illegal gambling operation! Yeah, nothing to worry about. Add in the Pensions stuff and there's likely 2 Government Regulators on the club's back.

I think the council would take a far more pragmatic view of the situation than just viewing it as an illegal gambling operation. The question of intent to conduct an illegal operation would surely be considered.