Doidge returns to FGR

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Sometimes, but not often, the loaning club will let a player go on loan while they pay most or all of his wages. But this is more for a Big Club letting a kid get experienced at a cash-strapped lower-league club. I’ve certainly never heard of a club lending its star striker to a higher-tier outfit while still paying his wages - or even part of them.

This is obviously fairly new, with loan-before-buy being a way around the earlier transfer deadline. But it would surprise me if FGR did anything but laugh at the notion. We may never see the paperwork and I understand LLS’s determination to cut through the bluster to the facts but given the multiple other questionable occurrences since 2016 I strongly suspect we haven’t been entirely clean-nosed here.

...which is also why I said the court case will be entertaining.
If one materialises.
If Ken has been as criminal as BWFCi insists then it will at the very least get rid of him as our CEO.

It would be helpful if you could point to an example of this insistence. Only, I haven't been able to find one myself, and I assume, given your persistence in demanding that others produce hard evidence of their assertions, you hold yourself to the same standard and thus will be able to provide plenty.

Can you give me evidence of my persistence in demanding hard evidence of other's assertions? I think not! I tend to demand only that logic is applied to situations were unicorns are usually free to roam...

But however, BWFCi on Thursday 10th January at 7:48 pm on this very website made the following bold claim:
Quote:
"Vince said ‘we will pursue the fee in court'... I cannot be bothered finding a link right now"
Unquote.

You may now contrast that with my post above.
LLS this very day at 4:49pm said
Quote:
"So, no court case?
How very fxcking inevitable."
Unquote

The fee, yes, but not the wages. And it was the intimation that we had agreed to pay (or cover, or reimburse, or however you wish to describe it) Doidge's wages for which you required hard evidence. But besides, if you could provide proof of any insistence that our chairman is guilty, or even just possibly guilty, of criminal activity in relation to this it would be most welcome.

I only required evidence IF an accusation was being made that we HADN'T. How fxcking difficult is this? When somebody accuses somebody of not doing something, you surely need evidence they should have done it in the first place if you are going to make a fxcking song and dance about it...

I'm quite obviously missing the point of what your beef is. Would you like to start from scratch and spell it out such that a child would understand it?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

^
Because, you see, this is a Question:
Quote (LLS)
This chinese whispers stuff: can anybody clear this up for me categorically?
I've searched the entire tinterwebnet and cannot find any expansion on the fact that FGR paid Doidge's wages for the past few months. Now, in there, somewhere, is an intimation that BWFC shoulda been paying them... But, neither Dale Vince, nor Ken Anderson, nor the various entities, companies and clubs associated with this have positively stated that "Bolton Wanderers should have paid his wages" in this period.
A definitive, legal, statement in any media would help clear up in my mind the confusion this is causing. Can anyone supply one?
Unquote

Whereas this is an Assertion:
Quote BWFCi)
"Vince said ‘we will pursue the fee in court'... I cannot be bothered finding a link right now"
Unquote.

The confusion regarding fees/wages v legality/illegality lie in your reading of the narrative.

[nicholaldo]

Sometimes, but not often, the loaning club will let a player go on loan while they pay most or all of his wages. But this is more for a Big Club letting a kid get experienced at a cash-strapped lower-league club. I’ve certainly never heard of a club lending its star striker to a higher-tier outfit while still paying his wages - or even part of them.

This is obviously fairly new, with loan-before-buy being a way around the earlier transfer deadline. But it would surprise me if FGR did anything but laugh at the notion. We may never see the paperwork and I understand LLS’s determination to cut through the bluster to the facts but given the multiple other questionable occurrences since 2016 I strongly suspect we haven’t been entirely clean-nosed here.

...which is also why I said the court case will be entertaining.
If one materialises.
If Ken has been as criminal as BWFCi insists then it will at the very least get rid of him as our CEO.

It would be helpful if you could point to an example of this insistence. Only, I haven't been able to find one myself, and I assume, given your persistence in demanding that others produce hard evidence of their assertions, you hold yourself to the same standard and thus will be able to provide plenty.

Can you give me evidence of my persistence in demanding hard evidence of other's assertions? I think not! I tend to demand only that logic is applied to situations were unicorns are usually free to roam...

But however, BWFCi on Thursday 10th January at 7:48 pm on this very website made the following bold claim:
Quote:
"Vince said ‘we will pursue the fee in court'... I cannot be bothered finding a link right now"
Unquote.

You may now contrast that with my post above.
LLS this very day at 4:49pm said
Quote:
"So, no court case?
How very fxcking inevitable."
Unquote

The fee, yes, but not the wages. And it was the intimation that we had agreed to pay (or cover, or reimburse, or however you wish to describe it) Doidge's wages for which you required hard evidence. But besides, if you could provide proof of any insistence that our chairman is guilty, or even just possibly guilty, of criminal activity in relation to this it would be most welcome.

I only required evidence IF an accusation was being made that we HADN'T. How fxcking difficult is this? When somebody accuses somebody of not doing something, you surely need evidence they should have done it in the first place if you are going to make a fxcking song and dance about it...

I'm quite obviously missing the point of what your beef is. Would you like to start from scratch and spell it out such that a child would understand it?

You stated that "I've searched the entire tinterwebnet and cannot find any expansion on the fact that FGR paid Doidge's wages for the past few months",

then followed that with “Now, in there, somewhere, is an intimation that BWFC shoulda been paying them",

and then followed that with "neither Dale Vince, nor Ken Anderson, nor the various entities, companies and clubs associated with this have positively stated that "Bolton Wanderers should have paid his wages" in this period.",

before asking for "A definitive, legal, statement in any media would help clear up in my mind the confusion this is causing."

So, you wanted confirmation both that they had paid the wages and also that we had agreed to cover/reimburse them. I have no problem with you requiring hard evidence, it's a perfectly reasonable request (and said hard evidence - or at least the hardest evidence we're ever likely to have access to - can be found in the quotes from the EFL's spokesperson in this article in the Telegraph). But you implied several posts above that allegations (or rather, an insistence) that the chairman has engaged in criminal activity were made by BWFC_Insane. It's therefore equally reasonable to ask for proof of this insistence.

Now, for the third time, where is it?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I don't give a fxck how many times you demand an answer. But the two things are seperate.
I asked a question (about the Wages)... confusion, lack of knowledge and certainty in the face of memes.
I ironically alleged that Ken had behaved criminally (about the Fees), and am now taking the piss that No Court Case seems to be upcoming - i.e. I am saying He Hasn't behaved criminally... irony, sarcasm, you know?

[and before you accuse me of not answering whatever you are about to post next ... I'm off to bed now, I might not answer before tomorrow]

[nicholaldo]

I don't give a fxck how many times you demand an answer. But the two things are seperate.
I asked a question (about the Wages)... confusion, lack of knowledge and certainty in the face of memes.
I ironically alleged that Ken had behaved criminally (about the Fees), and am now taking the piss that No Court Case seems to be upcoming - i.e. I am saying He Hasn't behaved criminally... irony, sarcasm, you know?

I know they're separate. I used your request for hard evidence in relation to the wages as a reason why it's therefore fair to ask for evidence of a poster on here implying that our chairman has acted criminally (after all, you ironically alleged that someone else had "insisted" it, not yourself).

Your post was worded as follows: "If Ken has been as criminal as BWFCi insists then it will at the very least get rid of him as our CEO."

Any court case for a breach of contract (in the unlikely event that one is brought) would be pursued through the civil courts, not criminal. It's a bit rum to publicly state that someone has insisted criminal activity has taken place when they explicitly haven't, no?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

It's a bit rum to publicly state that someone has insisted criminal activity has taken place when they explicitly haven't, no?

"Vince said ‘we will pursue the fee in court'... I cannot be bothered finding a link right now" - [when stating something and expressly not bothering to validate it, that to me is insisting on something... No?]

I didn't post that. I responded to it.

I've since pointed out that no court case is forthcoming. Nor likely to be.

... and it's merely your opinion as to whether a court case that won't happen is civil or criminal ffs.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

... and it's merely your opinion as to whether a court case that won't happen is civil or criminal ffs.

If it's libel, it's civil.

I don't know if it'd be libel, because we appear to have descended into some circle of hell built around lawsuits that may never happen and posts that may never have happened, but I do know that libel is a civil-court matter.

[Enoch]

I'll fill you in when it hasn't happened.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I'll fill you in when it hasn't happened.

"The case continues. Or doesn't. Ask Schrodinger."

[Prufrock]

I assume they're on about contract ("pursue the fee") which is always going to be civil (when it exists) and never criminal (if anything).

[nicholaldo]

It's a bit rum to publicly state that someone has insisted criminal activity has taken place when they explicitly haven't, no?

"Vince said ‘we will pursue the fee in court'... I cannot be bothered finding a link right now" - [when stating something and expressly not bothering to validate it, that to me is insisting on something... No?]

I didn't post that. I responded to it.

I've since pointed out that no court case is forthcoming. Nor likely to be.

... and it's merely your opinion as to whether a court case that won't happen is civil or criminal ffs.

But it isn't insisting that criminal activity has taken place. All it is, is stating that Vince claims an intention to pursue the fee in court, which would be a civil action. It was the sole reference to any court action in a discussion as to whether or not we might have agreed to reimburse Doidge's wages. Merely paraphrasing what Vince told a journalist doesn't constitute an accusation or an insistence of criminal behaviour on the part of our owner. I don't think it's a big deal, just that it was a bit uncalled for (or that you misinterpreted what was posted).

[nicholaldo]

I assume they're on about contract ("pursue the fee") which is always going to be civil (when it exists) and never criminal (if anything).

Yes, that.

[knobpolisher]

And he scored twice this evening in a 3 - 0 victory.

[TANGODANCER]

And he scored twice this evening in a 3 - 0 victory.

Another good bit of business turned sour on us from bad handling..

[Enoch]

And he scored twice this evening in a 3 - 0 victory.

That's twice as many as he got for us in 17 games.

[knobpolisher]

And he scored twice this evening in a 3 - 0 victory.

That's twice as many as he got for us in 17 games.

True but he's playing with better players now.

[officer_dibble]

My theory now is this was an elaborate ploy to bin him off as we decided he wasn’t worth £500k. Could well be a league one player in there but he certainly didn’t look the part in the championship. Not a great way to go about business but Ken’s all about the short term I guess.

[nicholaldo]

My theory now is this was an elaborate ploy to bin him off as we decided he wasn’t worth £500k. Could well be a league one player in there but he certainly didn’t look the part in the championship. Not a great way to go about business but Ken’s all about the short term I guess.

In which case, he might be of use to us very soon!

[TonyDomingos]

My theory now is this was an elaborate ploy to bin him off as we decided he wasn’t worth £500k. Could well be a league one player in there but he certainly didn’t look the part in the championship. Not a great way to go about business but Ken’s all about the short term I guess.

In which case, he might be of use to us very soon!

FGR are in the play off spots. He may well be playing against us in a little over six months.

[Enoch]

FGR are in the play off spots. He may well be playing against us in a little over six months.

Then lets hope they don't find some other dumb schmuck to palm him off on in the mean time.

I reckon I could still defend against the useless f*cker.

Grimsby's back four must be complete tosh!