Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

MrPosh

Warning: Potential Bradford Good News Story

223 posts in this topic

Good to see OMEGA's very own Wakefield having a whiter than white sponsor

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

The directors of a Scrap Metal Business that failed with total debts estimated at around £380,000 have given Undertakings not to hold directorships or take any part in company management for 4 years and 14 years respectively.

The Undertakings by Eric Ramskill France, age 69 of Cornwall House, Portland Crescent, Harrogate, and Jonathan Dean France, age 31 of Silcoates Court, Alverthorpe, Wakefield, West Yorkshire, were given in respect of their conduct as directors of Eric France & Son (Metals) Limited ("Eric France"), which carried out business from premises at Embassy Works, Church Street, Ossett, West Yorkshire, WF5 9DG.

Acceptance of the Undertakings on 26 January 2004 for Eric Ramskill France and on 30 January 2004 for Jonathan Dean France prevents them from being directors of a company or, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, being concerned or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a company for the above periods.

Eric France & Son (Metals) Limited was placed into voluntary liquidation on 19 February 2002 with estimated debts of £380,000 owed to creditors.

The Insolvency Service, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, has responsibility (under Section (6) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986) for the investigation of the conduct of directors of failed companies and for the disqualification of those who are considered to be unfit to be involved in the management of companies in the future.

Matters of unfit conduct, not disputed by Eric Ramskill France and Jonathan Dean France are: -

Schedule of Unfit Conduct

Eric Ramskill France

He abrogated his duties and responsibilities as a director of Eric France and

i. Failed to ensure that Eric France kept and preserved accounting records as required by the Companies Act 1985;

ii. Failed to ensure that Eric France conducted stock takes at the end of its financial years ending 31 May 1998 and 1999 as required by Section 221 (3) ( B) of the Companies Act 1985;

iii. Allowed Jonathan France to receive a loan from Eric France contrary to Section 330 of the Companies Act 1985;

iv. Allowed a payment of £15,000 and £25,000 to Jonathan France on 15 January 2002 to the detriment of the general body of creditors.

Jonathan Dean France

i. He failed to keep, preserve and delivery up adequate accounting records when required to do so by the Liquidator.

ii. He received a loan from Eric France, contrary to Section 330 of the Company's Act 1985.

iii. Eric France failed to conduct stock takes at the end of its financial years ending 31 May 1998 and 1999 as required by Section 212 (3) ( B) of the Company's Act 1985.

iv. He failed to co-operate with the liquidators enquires into the affairs and dealings of Eric France.

The same sponsor that Steve Ferres is desperatley pleading with to invest in Cas you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate is beyond belief! For years the RFL has been taking Murdoch's money, and fans haven't complained about that, even those that had their jobs pulled from under their feet when the pits closed, or maybe even some who were relatives of Hillsborough victims? Only Sun readers would honestly believe that anything associated with the Murdoch empire isn't crooked!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate is beyond belief! For years the RFL has been taking Murdoch's money, and fans haven't complained about that, even those that had their jobs pulled from under their feet when the pits closed, or maybe even some who were relatives of Hillsborough victims? Only Sun readers would honestly believe that anything associated with the Murdoch empire isn't crooked!

If you give a £5 back street blow job then you are a back street whore, if you give a £1000 blow job you are a high class personal escort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you give a £5 back street blow job then you are a back street whore, if you give a £1000 blow job you are a high class personal escort.

What you get upto on a weekend Padge is your own business. Let's try to keep this thread on topic. (;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate is beyond belief! For years the RFL has been taking Murdoch's money, and fans haven't complained about that, even those that had their jobs pulled from under their feet when the pits closed, or maybe even some who were relatives of Hillsborough victims? Only Sun readers would honestly believe that anything associated with the Murdoch empire isn't crooked!

so what are your viewsd on the morality of companies that specialise in tax avoidance for the wealthy?

fans have complained about Murdoch-check the utterings of people on your own club's 'forum', and on the more rational platforms for discussion.

Do you not detect a certain duality of standards, being 'moral', 'fair' and so on when it suits?

I'm not sure what's crooked about SKY TV but Murdoch's print media has a lot to answer for and indeed this is happening now I'm given to understand.

It isn't the actual sponsorship by tax avoidance specialists that is the issue, but the self serving duality of standards employed by various people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which sponsors are those out of interest?

One example. Wasn't a car sales company a Bulls sponsor for many years? There were 1,870 people killed and 24,770 killed or seriously injured (KSI), in reported road accidents in the year ending March 2011, plus no end of pollution caused by infernal confusion engined vehicles. Seems pretty dangerous thing to be linked with, if you ask me.

Don't Galpham, a perfectly legal and respectable company make paracetamol ( along with many other companies) ? Dangerous stuff if abused by usesr, overdoses can cause liver damage and has been used in suicides? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't the actual sponsorship by tax avoidance specialists that is the issue, but the self serving duality of standards employed by various people.

Exactly. The last and current governments being examples as they carry on with the HM R and Cs sales and leaseback deal with Mapley, based in a tax haven. see National Audit Office report http://www.nao.org.u...estate_pfi.aspx, as Margaret Hodge lambasts ( quite possibly she is right) Amazon etc, yet is a significant shareholder in the family business Stemcor. Analysis of Stemcor’s latest accounts show that the business paid tax of just £163,000 on revenues of more than £2.1bn in 2011.

Is this all legal? Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said it earlier and ill say it again

Omega hasn't got a clue what he is talking about

Unless he is a finance expert as well as the NFL commercial director

I take it Omega doesnt have a credit card? Which are the worst real examples of what's commonly known as "revolving credit"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think most of the people on here arguing the to$$ over things that aren't anything to do with the thread, that are spreading other parts into arguements that aren't even there really need to get a grip on reality and stop trying to be keyboard warriors.

What happened with the Bulls and administration is for another thread but in reality £1.2 million has come into our game which has to be good doesn't it?

God only knows where some of you on here want money to come from with regards to sponsorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Think most of the people on here arguing the to$$ over things that aren't anything to do with the thread

2. God only knows where some of you on here want money to come from with regards to sponsorship.

1. Agreed

2. The angels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think most of the people on here arguing the to$$ over things that aren't anything to do with the thread, that are spreading other parts into arguements that aren't even there really need to get a grip on reality and stop trying to be keyboard warriors.

What happened with the Bulls and administration is for another thread but in reality £1.2 million has come into our game which has to be good doesn't it?

God only knows where some of you on here want money to come from with regards to sponsorship.

yes sir sorry sir, i'll submit my post for approval next time sir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One example. Wasn't a car sales company a Bulls sponsor for many years? There were 1,870 people killed and 24,770 killed or seriously injured (KSI), in reported road accidents in the year ending March 2011, plus no end of pollution caused by infernal confusion engined vehicles. Seems pretty dangerous thing to be linked with, if you ask me.

Don't Galpham, a perfectly legal and respectable company make paracetamol ( along with many other companies) ? Dangerous stuff if abused by usesr, overdoses can cause liver damage and has been used in suicides? see http://en.wikipedia....iki/Paracetamol

oh dear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. The angels

Does that include The Hells Angels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in rugby league!!

What is? Complaining about sponsors isn't - see Wonga's sponsorship of Newcastle United (and others) in football. That sparked a similar debate with fans and the national press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Jackson wrote a song about the ethical position on sponsorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank the lord for eddie stobart................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, no. Lorries have accidents, emit CO2 and kill wildlife. Repainting curtain-sides releases harmful vapours. Lorries transport things that are unethical and or dangerous. this has no part in our game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John - you may mock, but a discussion on morals around sponsorship is a serious issue for many.

It's not a massive issue for me personally, as long as the business is legal I don't think we can be overly picky.

That said, I work for a Bank! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not mocking. It is a serious issue for me too. I merely point out the absurdity of the position taken on this issue by some on here. It is one thing to have a person dislike of a particular organisation but it is another thing entirely to try to rationalise that dislike from some sort of supposed ethically superior standpoint.

There's nowt wrong with banks, by the way, only some things wrong with some bits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not mocking. It is a serious issue for me too. I merely point out the absurdity of the position taken by some on here.

Yep - unfortunately as with all discussions here they are often taken over by club loyalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rightly or wrongly, short term loan companies are now a big part of life but are nothing new really. How old are pawn shops? For a lot of people its the same thing....borrow now, pay later when paid.

Its a rip off simple as, but we aren't talking genicidal third world dictators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017