UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[turbobloke]

Greg66 said:

turbobloke said:

nitpicking, going personal, trying to score points, derailing the thread, etc etc.

I'm flattered! Praise from the master indeed!

As for derailing the thread (a) you introduced this point (b) UKIP's financial viability is pretty fundamental to its future. Now go re-read the thread title.

If you can't bear to have people disagree with you, perhaps forums aren't for you.

Boring and wrong with too many smilies by half in an attempt to make up for the rest of the dreck.

I can bear to have anyone disagree with me, though in fact if you read the post from me at 2242 hrs before the one you criticised because you didn't approve of the quoting style (tough titty) I agreed with you, which means we agree.

When some tedious soul thinks it's interesting to comment on quoting, it's...tediious.

Your tedious and arrogant approach has been spotted in the Presidential election thread. Keep it up, it's working a treat.

frankenstein12 said:

AreOut said:

Greg66 said:

From which he will make stloads of money, whilst subverting the democratic process.

subverting democratic process?! His opponent practically admitted they subverted it themselves and you think it's the victim who is subverting it, pathetic.

I really do understand why anyone is bothering to continue to engage with the anti Trump campaigners as it is utterly fruitless.

Their high and mighty arrogant attitudes are the same as the remainers.

Your attempt to derail the thread ought to end here. See if you can cope with that and only one smiley.

[Dindoit]

turbobloke said:

It looks as though the £800k overdraft bit was indeed wrong.

Where did "the £800k overdraft bit" come from? As far as I can tell you're the only one who has mentioned it anywhere. As in anywhere on the internet.

[anonymous-user]

Turbostalker. That could be your new name.

"has been spotted"? By the turbopostingmonitor? Wow. You should put that in one of your files. Or perhaps make a graph out of it.

Cross posting is just a little turbodesperate, don't you think?

Oh no, you don't, because you did it right there!

[turbobloke]

Dindoit said:

turbobloke said:

It looks as though the £800k overdraft bit was indeed wrong.

Where did "the £800k overdraft bit" come from? As far as I can tell you're the only one who has mentioned it anywhere. As in anywhere on the internet.

Already mentioned earlier in the thread.

Mrs TB heard an interview involving a Conservative MP, who made the allegation, and a UKIP spokesman who categorically denied it....may well have been BBC R2 as she listens to that, so it could be available still (iPlayer?). Not sure how being on the internet makes something correct or incorrect, it's pretty much irrelevant in terms of veracity.

If my post at 22:42 hrs didn't signify agreement regarding the overall position (not the specific overdraft allegation) then all I can say is, do you want the five minute argument or the full half hour? Either way, try Greg66.

Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 20th October 23:14

[anonymous-user]

I haven't read the accounts but if those graphs in the earlier post are correct they owe approx 800K due in the next 12 months, with significantly less cash/assets.

However they may have something due to come in that isn't booked yet, or the creditor(s) may well agree to defer the payment.

Not exactly a great set of books, but not the end of the world.

They should think about charging a few quid for people to vote in their leadership elections, guaranteed earner and what the fk could possibly go wrong?

[Dindoit]

turbobloke said:

Dindoit said:

turbobloke said:

It looks as though the £800k overdraft bit was indeed wrong.

Where did "the £800k overdraft bit" come from? As far as I can tell you're the only one who has mentioned it anywhere. As in anywhere on the internet.

Already mentioned earlier in the thread.

Mrs TB heard an interview involving a Conservative MP, who made the allegation, and a UKIP spokesman who categorically denied it....may well have been BBC R2 as she listens to that, so it could be available still (iPlayer?). Not sure how being on the internet makes something correct or incorrect, it's pretty much irrelevant in terms of veracity.

So the last few pages have been about second hand hearsay. Understood.

[don4l]

Greg66 said:

don4l said:

Fantastic!

Remainer lies don't matter.

I cannot believe that you admitted that.

Were you under the impression that the Leave campaign told lots of lies?

Do us and yourself a favour tomorrow.

Take a day off being stupid.

I'm mortally wounded.

That was, as I am sure that you know, a very well aimed insult.

"Take a day off being stupid."

Fantastic!

I shall flounce off PH as a result of your fantastic insult.

Or, perhaps I shall wait for your leftie, moderator friend, Bill, to ban me.

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

Or, perhaps I shall wait for your leftie, moderator friend, Bill, to ban me.

Bill?

[turbobloke]

Dindoit said:

turbobloke said:

Dindoit said:

turbobloke said:

It looks as though the £800k overdraft bit was indeed wrong.

Where did "the £800k overdraft bit" come from? As far as I can tell you're the only one who has mentioned it anywhere. As in anywhere on the internet.

Already mentioned earlier in the thread.

Mrs TB heard an interview involving a Conservative MP, who made the allegation, and a UKIP spokesman who categorically denied it....may well have been BBC R2 as she listens to that, so it could be available still (iPlayer?). Not sure how being on the internet makes something correct or incorrect, it's pretty much irrelevant in terms of veracity.

So the last few pages have been about second hand hearsay. Understood.

Not quite. It's called witness testimony.

[Jockman]

desolate said:

I haven't read the accounts but if those graphs in the earlier post are correct they owe approx 800K due in the next 12 months, with significantly less cash/assets.

Technically they do. In the real world, they don't.

[Jockman]

desolate said:

don4l said:

Or, perhaps I shall wait for your leftie, moderator friend, Bill, to ban me.

Bill?

don4l's been banned

Anyone got a feather to lend me......

[turbobloke]

Jockman said:

desolate said:

I haven't read the accounts but if those graphs in the earlier post are correct they owe approx 800K due in the next 12 months, with significantly less cash/assets.

Technically they do. In the real world, they don't.

The UKIP £800k situation is on the internet, can't recall who said it wasn't but it hardly matters.

And, speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, he 
(Oakden) denied a report saying the Party was 
£800,000 in debt, adding: "I can absolutely confirm 
we are in a comfortable cash-positive financial
position."

Unfortunately the nature of the debt and the origin of the report isn't given as part of any quote. Nevertheless, strike one up for witness testimony.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37689117

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

Unfortunately the nature of the debt and the origin of the report isn't given as part of any quote. Nevertheless, strike one up for witness testimony.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37689117

According to the figures quoted above they are certainly "in debt". But that isn't an issue if they can pay it back, is it?


Anyway, the loss of Woolf is a serious blow, even if he is tarnished by the "altercation"

[Jockman]

If the Accounts were part of a trend I would be concerned (I NEVER want an Organisation to fail, what with all the human fallout und so weiter).

There are exceptional reasons for the Accounts, I personally would not be concerned about them but, hey, I would obviously prefer some sort of liquidity

Gearing is a double-edged sword. No fundamental concerns.

[Jockman]

desolate said:

According to the figures quoted above they are certainly "in debt". But that isn't an issue if they can pay it back, is it?

Correct. Look at your own mortgage for a reference point. This sort of debt is more benign (still serious !!).

[anonymous-user]

Jockman said:

desolate said:

According to the figures quoted above they are certainly "in debt". But that isn't an issue if they can pay it back, is it?

Correct. Look at your own mortgage for a reference point. This sort of debt is more benign (still serious !!).

On your personal balance sheet only a certain amount would show as being due in the next 12 months surely? The graphs above show 800K due in the next 12 months. (at the time of the accounts)

Anyway UKIP wise who gives a ste? if NF is involved some knob will pay it off.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

The UKIP £800k situation is on the internet, can't recall who said it wasn't but it hardly matters.

And, speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, he 
(Oakden) denied a report saying the Party was 
£800,000 in debt, adding: "I can absolutely confirm 
we are in a comfortable cash-positive financial
position."

Unfortunately the nature of the debt and the origin of the report isn't given as part of any quote. Nevertheless, strike one up for witness testimony.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37689117

So to summarise, based in that material
- there was no mention of an "overdraft"
- there was no conservative MP making any allegations
- the "witness testimony" is therefore unreliable on both material counts
- as UKIP's most recent filed accounts show it to have had £800k+ of creditors due in a year (i.e. debt) and trade creditors >> trade debtors (i.e. Cash negative), either the UKIP man was knowingly wrong, or misinformed, or correct because UKIP's financial position has improved dramatically.

That's well and truly done now.

[Sylvaforever]

Whatever you want to believe, man......

[turbobloke]

Greg66 said:

turbobloke said:

The UKIP £800k situation is on the internet, can't recall who said it wasn't but it hardly matters.

And, speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, he 
(Oakden) denied a report saying the Party was 
£800,000 in debt, adding: "I can absolutely confirm 
we are in a comfortable cash-positive financial
position."

Unfortunately the nature of the debt and the origin of the report isn't given as part of any quote. Nevertheless, strike one up for witness testimony.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37689117

So to summarise, based in that material
- there was no mention of an "overdraft"
- there was no conservative MP making any allegations
- the "witness testimony" is therefore unreliable on both material counts
- as UKIP's most recent filed accounts show it to have had £800k+ of creditors due in a year (i.e. debt) and trade creditors >> trade debtors (i.e. Cash negative), either the UKIP man was knowingly wrong, or misinformed, or correct because UKIP's financial position has improved dramatically.

That's well and truly done now.

Not really, as surely even you will appreciate that an internet article isn't a radio interview and there's nothing to say that a particular talking head event described is the one Mrs TB heard. The UKIP guy may well have been touring the studios to put the record straight as he sees it.

So much boring guesswork above with a pointless bullet point list of carefully crafted assumptions for good measure, we're lucky to get sight of it.

Sylvaforever said:

Whatever you want to believe, man......

Yeah, peace, man

[The Hypno-Toad]

All this huffing and puffing about overdrafts doesn't really matter if you can't beat the Greens and Lib-Dems in one of the safest Tory seats in the country. If you ever wanted to get even a sniff of real power you need to be finishing 3rd in every single by-election.

And as much as I wanted someone to break up the third party system, it clearly is no longer going to be UKIP following the departure of Saint Nigel. It's a shame but I think it's over.