Opus Finale .... A Warts an' all Exposé of Paintball's Very Own Megalomaniac
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
- Status
Could be interesting to play the UWL... The woods are the origins of my team before we saw the light and hit the astro, but could be fun playing competitively in the woods with a decently run UWL.
Interesting query though, and it has been going through my mind, @Robbo is probably the best person to answer this.
With all the money that Gino has been screwed over, and the various of thousands owed to other co's and people, is any legal route being taken to recover the monies? I know its been said by the fanboys that 'if it were true, why hasnt anyone taken action yet', and I know that Gino's 'mob' have had words in Canada and CPPS etc, but besides informal processes, is anything else occurring behind the curtains?
Interesting query though, and it has been going through my mind, @Robbo is probably the best person to answer this.
With all the money that Gino has been screwed over, and the various of thousands owed to other co's and people, is any legal route being taken to recover the monies? I know its been said by the fanboys that 'if it were true, why hasnt anyone taken action yet', and I know that Gino's 'mob' have had words in Canada and CPPS etc, but besides informal processes, is anything else occurring behind the curtains?
Limited companies make legal action pointless in a lot of situations since the "Limited" part means limited liability for the owners (shareholders).
I would like to play the UWL as well but think its currently too far away for me to get to.
On the subject of legal works, whilst this is not my problem, BUT the following is what I see as a big Problem.
Gino and Valken are screwed for £60k, obviously he is a pretty p***ed off man.
tb and sl have gone skint as they have no money
if Gino wants to go down the Legal route then obviously he can but firstly it is going to cost him some more money and if it got to court or a judgement is given then whilst said company and directors should have to pay the money - they have none so Gino has paid out yet more money and still not got any back. For him he cant win and for the dregs being sl and tb then they have had a win/win situation !!
Although if truth be told, if someone owed me a substantial amount of money I would be looking at other ways or recovering at least some of it via whatever ways I could, I would even look at turning up at one of his events with some friends to see what was there and worth taking.
On the subject of legal works, whilst this is not my problem, BUT the following is what I see as a big Problem.
Gino and Valken are screwed for £60k, obviously he is a pretty p***ed off man.
tb and sl have gone skint as they have no money
if Gino wants to go down the Legal route then obviously he can but firstly it is going to cost him some more money and if it got to court or a judgement is given then whilst said company and directors should have to pay the money - they have none so Gino has paid out yet more money and still not got any back. For him he cant win and for the dregs being sl and tb then they have had a win/win situation !!
Although if truth be told, if someone owed me a substantial amount of money I would be looking at other ways or recovering at least some of it via whatever ways I could, I would even look at turning up at one of his events with some friends to see what was there and worth taking.
@phil-boy It depends if the debt was personally guaranteed by Tim, and which party the contract to supply paint was with. Unfortunately turning up at events and taking stuff of value would land you on the wrong side of the law - bailiffs and HCEO's even have back off on removing goods if paperwork to prove they belong to a legal entity other than the one identified on a judgement is produced.
Just realised this post is dangerously close to me working at work - see what you've done barnett!!!!!
Just realised this post is dangerously close to me working at work - see what you've done barnett!!!!!
There is a way to do this. For all the guys that have been screwed to work together and make better events at a decent price ding dong the gone
As a board member, cheif exec or whatever his title was/is (or Suzy's for that matter if they are still legally together) surely he will still have a personal liability if it can proved that any actions taken to avoid paying debts (such as phoenixing, loophole or no), are a tad nefarious... or am I wrong?
In the UK, a limited company can trade as long as it's solvent [making money] - if any limited company looks as though it is heading toward insolvency then that company has to be wound up to prevent further debts from being accumulated.
In normal companies that become insolvent, the books will show the flow of monies in and out over a period of time and it's relatively simple to see the direction in which the company is going prior to any claim of insolvency.
Once the limited company has stopped trading, if there are outstanding creditors then these people get a percentage of any assets, cash or otherwise that's been left in the company but there's a pecking order such that the government in the guise of the VAT and PAYE tax have first claims and then any personal guarantees if indeed there are any.
Generally speaking, most limited companies don't have too many assets come the time of insolvency, orchestrated or otherwise.
The limited company status protects the owners of the limited company by restricting their debt to the company as against being personally responsible for monies owed.
However, when people like barnett claim insolvency in the way he did, there will be a digital paper trail behind him that will show how the assets of companies like shoreline were manipulated prior to it going under.
Re barnett's insolvency, I have no doubt, it was all prearranged such that all his creditors got fuhkd because he never had any intention of paying that 61 grand once he realised he could ditch shoreline and come out of it with a bunch of cash and product that he could move on eBay; we've already seen this product surfacing on eBay as barnett seeks to convert Gino's stock/money into cash for barnett's back pocket.
He would have known a considerable time before he stopped trading that he was going to pull this stroke because from what I know, there were certain financial transactions and movements of company assets that had to pre-empt the decision to fold the company.
If there was a deliberate orchestration of insolvency then he's legally liable but how to actually prove it will be problematic for various reasons.
Basically, barnett cheated his friends and associates, wound up the company and pocketed his cash.
barnett has no conscience whatsoever which is proven, not just for the reason of defrauding the monies from his friends and associates but it was the way he did it that's so disgusting .... this one act alone precisely describes his ethical stance but let's face it, we knew what he was like long before this - I warned Gino, Will, Simon Cole and many, many people, the only thing that separates the people who got fuhk'd by barnett from the people who I warned that haven't been fuhk'd yet ... it's merely a matter of time and circumstance.
barnett's sphere of activity in our industry has been profoundly contained this past year and the only reason he's still infecting our sport/industry is because he has a bunch of idiots who believe what he's saying, their naivety is staggering ... thankfully, their number has most definitely reduced and it's only a matter of time before barnett dies on the vine .. it can't come soon enough from where I'm sitting.
There is one other reason that explains our sport's continued infection and that's another slime-toad, andy sables who has been stuck up barnett's ass like a dildo - he has allowed himself to be continually used by barnett and then he has the fuhkin audacity to try and tell people within our industry that he hasn't got much to do with barnett anymore.
sables must think our industry is as stooopid as barnett's haemorrhoids if he thinks people will actually believe him with so much contrary evidence available.
Still, these type people can't help but follow their nature, and as such, they write their own fall from grace ....
.
In normal companies that become insolvent, the books will show the flow of monies in and out over a period of time and it's relatively simple to see the direction in which the company is going prior to any claim of insolvency.
Once the limited company has stopped trading, if there are outstanding creditors then these people get a percentage of any assets, cash or otherwise that's been left in the company but there's a pecking order such that the government in the guise of the VAT and PAYE tax have first claims and then any personal guarantees if indeed there are any.
Generally speaking, most limited companies don't have too many assets come the time of insolvency, orchestrated or otherwise.
The limited company status protects the owners of the limited company by restricting their debt to the company as against being personally responsible for monies owed.
However, when people like barnett claim insolvency in the way he did, there will be a digital paper trail behind him that will show how the assets of companies like shoreline were manipulated prior to it going under.
Re barnett's insolvency, I have no doubt, it was all prearranged such that all his creditors got fuhkd because he never had any intention of paying that 61 grand once he realised he could ditch shoreline and come out of it with a bunch of cash and product that he could move on eBay; we've already seen this product surfacing on eBay as barnett seeks to convert Gino's stock/money into cash for barnett's back pocket.
He would have known a considerable time before he stopped trading that he was going to pull this stroke because from what I know, there were certain financial transactions and movements of company assets that had to pre-empt the decision to fold the company.
If there was a deliberate orchestration of insolvency then he's legally liable but how to actually prove it will be problematic for various reasons.
Basically, barnett cheated his friends and associates, wound up the company and pocketed his cash.
barnett has no conscience whatsoever which is proven, not just for the reason of defrauding the monies from his friends and associates but it was the way he did it that's so disgusting .... this one act alone precisely describes his ethical stance but let's face it, we knew what he was like long before this - I warned Gino, Will, Simon Cole and many, many people, the only thing that separates the people who got fuhk'd by barnett from the people who I warned that haven't been fuhk'd yet ... it's merely a matter of time and circumstance.
barnett's sphere of activity in our industry has been profoundly contained this past year and the only reason he's still infecting our sport/industry is because he has a bunch of idiots who believe what he's saying, their naivety is staggering ... thankfully, their number has most definitely reduced and it's only a matter of time before barnett dies on the vine .. it can't come soon enough from where I'm sitting.
There is one other reason that explains our sport's continued infection and that's another slime-toad, andy sables who has been stuck up barnett's ass like a dildo - he has allowed himself to be continually used by barnett and then he has the fuhkin audacity to try and tell people within our industry that he hasn't got much to do with barnett anymore.
sables must think our industry is as stooopid as barnett's haemorrhoids if he thinks people will actually believe him with so much contrary evidence available.
Still, these type people can't help but follow their nature, and as such, they write their own fall from grace ....
.
Personally I'd ban limited companies and bring back debtor's prisons but that's just because of what I do for a living, we had some paperwork a couple of years back for a dentist (how does a dentist go bust) who was arguing he should keep one of his BMW's so he could still get to work and his villa in Italy because it wasn't worth what he'd paid for it when going into an IVA to pay a fraction of the £6m he owed to his creditors over 5 years.
It's all well and good creating legislation that's designed to encourage the growth of small businesses such as the limited liability law but you'll always get some people cheating the system for their own financial game.
There are of course genuine cases where companies fall foul of a market decline leaving them cash-starved but the difference here is, in one case, the directors/shareholders are forced to cease trading, in the other case, people like barnett, see the limited liability law as an opportunity.
We have a relatively small industry and so when one of these scumbags surface, it tends to have a greater impact on everybody.
Doors tend to close quite quickly once the word is out and I'm sure this has already happened re barnett but there are a few more who need to jump ship before we see the end of barnett.
Ever since our sport began, we've had a pretty good bunch of people in our industry, there have been a few Del-Boys but I can genuinely say that barnett is by far the worst not just in terms of his treachery but in the way he conducts himself.
There are of course genuine cases where companies fall foul of a market decline leaving them cash-starved but the difference here is, in one case, the directors/shareholders are forced to cease trading, in the other case, people like barnett, see the limited liability law as an opportunity.
We have a relatively small industry and so when one of these scumbags surface, it tends to have a greater impact on everybody.
Doors tend to close quite quickly once the word is out and I'm sure this has already happened re barnett but there are a few more who need to jump ship before we see the end of barnett.
Ever since our sport began, we've had a pretty good bunch of people in our industry, there have been a few Del-Boys but I can genuinely say that barnett is by far the worst not just in terms of his treachery but in the way he conducts himself.
- Status