Warren

[TopGun]

Is this personal bankruptcy? Hope it doesn't happen and he gets it all squared away. Frank has given me a lot more joy in my life than HMRC ever have so I know whose side I'm on.

it will be queensbury boxing. warren is too wise to personally lose all. queensbury boxing will fold, as did sports network etc........and from the ashes will appear another company.

frank will have all his assets seperate. allegedly will not be linked to queensbury etc etc

cut off the head of one flower and more nutrients will go to the others.........and a new bud will form

ladies and gentleman........i give you................. onetwo promotions

Exactly, Ive lost count how often Fwank does this....bit annoying and terrible that people can do this as Ive been screwed over by companies doing a pheonix and not having bills paid, its like legal rape!

[JimStone]

That whistleblower chap is off his head

Why? Because he's prepared to slag off a drug dealer on Twitter? If we've got to the point where the ordinary man on the street thinks that is too big a stand to take, people have grown even softer than I thought.

[Dirk Kelly]

He’ll get around HMRC, repayment plan, % in the pound or a full repayment.

I don’t think the Frampton card will go ahead. Two PPV’s on the same night - I can’t see it working. Frampton is a fight for the boxing fans whilst Whyte is for the casuals. Which group is bigger and actually buys PPv’s??

I presume, and may be wrong on this, that with this sort of thing, purses are based on projected income from PPV sales, eg say £2m each if it is a beano, or £1.50 each if they sell a single PPV. Therefore, the promoter's risk is somewhat limited, although obviously there are overheads which are fixed costs and just have to be paid. Biggest overheads will be the two main event boxer's purses and I figure the purses are linked to PPV sales. Might be wrong. So anyway for this reason I imagine Fwank would not pull the plug - to do so risks it happening again. Lets be honest if Eddie can stop a rival PPV show by counter-programming with his own, he'll do it again. As would Fwank for that matter.

I’d imagine every main event boxer will have a guaranteed purse of x and then x% if the show generates more than a certain number of PPV fights.

We know Hearn let’s his biggest stars ‘own the show’ and he takes 20% so there’s full transparency. I don’t think Queensbury do the same but there will surely be guaranteed figures for both frampton and Warrington beneath what is hoped to be generated. Hence why I say both will be very unhappy with a rival Ppv.

Spot on. He’s going to be exposed for a few million at least. I could be wrong but just don’t see two PPV’s on the same night. It’s madness. Unless BT are bankrolling and willing to take a hit to go head to head with Sky. The easiest way would be to put the price down, fight Eddie on profit.

[Dirk Kelly]

Is this personal bankruptcy? Hope it doesn't happen and he gets it all squared away. Frank has given me a lot more joy in my life than HMRC ever have so I know whose side I'm on.

it will be queensbury boxing. warren is too wise to personally lose all. queensbury boxing will fold, as did sports network etc........and from the ashes will appear another company.

frank will have all his assets seperate. allegedly will not be linked to queensbury etc etc

cut off the head of one flower and more nutrients will go to the others.........and a new bud will form

ladies and gentleman........i give you................. onetwo promotions

If it’s Queensbury, why would Warren being getting served as he’s not a director it’s George Warren who is the main man.

[Counter-puncher]

Is this personal bankruptcy? Hope it doesn't happen and he gets it all squared away. Frank has given me a lot more joy in my life than HMRC ever have so I know whose side I'm on.

it will be queensbury boxing. warren is too wise to personally lose all. queensbury boxing will fold, as did sports network etc........

Being specific, the article says HMRC has a problem with an individual, and uses the word 'bankrupt'. If the unpaid taxes were for a company, to be correct (1) the article should mention the company owing, not an individual, it would be foolish to publish an article saying an indidual was being chased for debt by HMRC when actually it was a limited company connected with that individual, an individual who was litigiously-minded could probably sue them for publishing that, and (2) they should use the phrase 'insolvent' not 'bankrupt'

Unless the article is wrong, it is suggesting HMRC's problem is with an individual, not a limited company.

[spudder56]

Is this personal bankruptcy? Hope it doesn't happen and he gets it all squared away. Frank has given me a lot more joy in my life than HMRC ever have so I know whose side I'm on.

it will be queensbury boxing. warren is too wise to personally lose all. queensbury boxing will fold, as did sports network etc........

Being specific, the article says HMRC has a problem with an individual, and uses the word 'bankrupt'. If the unpaid taxes were for a company, to be correct (1) the article should mention the company owing, not an individual, it would be foolish to publish an article saying an indidual was being chased for debt by HMRC when actually it was a limited company connected with that individual, an individual who was litigiously-minded could probably sue them for publishing that, and (2) they should use the phrase 'insolvent' not 'bankrupt'

Unless the article is wrong, it is suggesting HMRC's problem is with an individual, not a limited company.

Spot on that’s exactly how I see it mate it would appear that the HMRC are chasing him personally

[Wa1nuts]

Is this personal bankruptcy? Hope it doesn't happen and he gets it all squared away. Frank has given me a lot more joy in my life than HMRC ever have so I know whose side I'm on.

it will be queensbury boxing. warren is too wise to personally lose all. queensbury boxing will fold, as did sports network etc........

Being specific, the article says HMRC has a problem with an individual, and uses the word 'bankrupt'. If the unpaid taxes were for a company, to be correct (1) the article should mention the company owing, not an individual, it would be foolish to publish an article saying an indidual was being chased for debt by HMRC when actually it was a limited company connected with that individual, an individual who was litigiously-minded could probably sue them for publishing that, and (2) they should use the phrase 'insolvent' not 'bankrupt'

Unless the article is wrong, it is suggesting HMRC's problem is with an individual, not a limited company.

Correct me if im wrong but the article was published by the sun?

Therefore its probably just completely made up never mind getting a minor detail wrong

I'm shocked people still read the scum at all to be honest

[Counter-puncher]

it will be queensbury boxing. warren is too wise to personally lose all. queensbury boxing will fold, as did sports network etc........

Being specific, the article says HMRC has a problem with an individual, and uses the word 'bankrupt'. If the unpaid taxes were for a company, to be correct (1) the article should mention the company owing, not an individual, it would be foolish to publish an article saying an indidual was being chased for debt by HMRC when actually it was a limited company connected with that individual, an individual who was litigiously-minded could probably sue them for publishing that, and (2) they should use the phrase 'insolvent' not 'bankrupt'

Unless the article is wrong, it is suggesting HMRC's problem is with an individual, not a limited company.

Correct me if im wrong but the article was published by the sun?

Therefore its probably just completely made up never mind getting a minor detail wrong

I'm shocked people still read the scum at all to be honest

In this instance it would surprise me.

[Dirk Kelly]

Being specific, the article says HMRC has a problem with an individual, and uses the word 'bankrupt'. If the unpaid taxes were for a company, to be correct (1) the article should mention the company owing, not an individual, it would be foolish to publish an article saying an indidual was being chased for debt by HMRC when actually it was a limited company connected with that individual, an individual who was litigiously-minded could probably sue them for publishing that, and (2) they should use the phrase 'insolvent' not 'bankrupt'

Unless the article is wrong, it is suggesting HMRC's problem is with an individual, not a limited company.

Correct me if im wrong but the article was published by the sun?

Therefore its probably just completely made up never mind getting a minor detail wrong

I'm shocked people still read the scum at all to be honest

In this instance it would surprise me.

Frank isn’t a director of an active company. Had a quick look so may be wrong. So either that shit house of a paper had got it wrong or they’re going after him personally.

Discussing his house as an asset so guessing it’s hij they’re going after as the whole point of a limited company is they can’t come after you personally if it fails.

[Counter-puncher]

And a reply from his representative was that it was in HMRC's interest for the individual to maximise his earnings, talking of him as an individual

[coneye]

He's had years , to divert his funds to his sons , familly ect, he probably has two pound fifty in the bank , , If it is him peronaly they will probably settle for 50 cents on the dollar , canny old fox is allegedly .

If he does lose things and has too pay up , well KARMAS A BITCH

[tobyh5]

Discussing his house as an asset so guessing it’s hij they’re going after as the whole point of a limited company is they can’t come after you personally if it fails.

Well that is not true. I know most layman believe it is the case, but it isn't. There are many situations which can arise which leave a company director liable for debts. If you are a director of a limited company and not aware of this, sack your accountant.

[Dirk Kelly]

Discussing his house as an asset so guessing it’s hij they’re going after as the whole point of a limited company is they can’t come after you personally if it fails.

Well that is not true. I know most layman believe it is the case, but it isn't. There are many situations which can arise which leave a company director liable for debts. If you are a director of a limited company and not aware of this, sack your accountant.

What situations do you mean? I’ve unfortunately got recent experience of my business going tits up and speaking with my luquidator the only way I’m personally liable is if I’m trading fraudently, evading tax and VAT etc basically breaking the law.

[JimJim2009]

Might have answered your own question there mate

[Oiky]

That whistleblower chap is off his head

Why? Because he's prepared to slag off a drug dealer on Twitter? If we've got to the point where the ordinary man on the street thinks that is too big a stand to take, people have grown even softer than I thought.

You've clearly never seen things like that end badly for somebody

[Counter-puncher]

Discussing his house as an asset so guessing it’s hij they’re going after as the whole point of a limited company is they can’t come after you personally if it fails.

Well that is not true. I know most layman believe it is the case, but it isn't. There are many situations which can arise which leave a company director liable for debts. If you are a director of a limited company and not aware of this, sack your accountant.

What situations do you mean? I’ve unfortunately got recent experience of my business going tits up and speaking with my luquidator the only way I’m personally liable is if I’m trading fraudently, evading tax and VAT etc basically breaking the law.

Or trading whilst knowingly insolvent, etc.
When you said the limited company means they can't come after you if it fails, that's not the case. If it fails when you were taking on new debts knowing you couldn't satisfy them, you lose limited liability.

[Boxerbeetle]

Well that is not true. I know most layman believe it is the case, but it isn't. There are many situations which can arise which leave a company director liable for debts. If you are a director of a limited company and not aware of this, sack your accountant.

What situations do you mean? I’ve unfortunately got recent experience of my business going tits up and speaking with my luquidator the only way I’m personally liable is if I’m trading fraudently, evading tax and VAT etc basically breaking the law.

Or trading whilst knowingly insolvent, etc.
When you said the limited company means they can't come after you if it fails, that's not the case. If it fails when you were taking on new debts knowing you couldn't satisfy them, you lose limited liability.

Unless you work for a big bank, of course

[Counter-puncher]

Although maybe you were including that within 'fraudulent'

[Counter-puncher]

What situations do you mean? I’ve unfortunately got recent experience of my business going tits up and speaking with my luquidator the only way I’m personally liable is if I’m trading fraudently, evading tax and VAT etc basically breaking the law.

Or trading whilst knowingly insolvent, etc.
When you said the limited company means they can't come after you if it fails, that's not the case. If it fails when you were taking on new debts knowing you couldn't satisfy them, you lose limited liability.

Unless you work for a big bank, of course

whole nother can of worms

[tobyh5]

Well that is not true. I know most layman believe it is the case, but it isn't. There are many situations which can arise which leave a company director liable for debts. If you are a director of a limited company and not aware of this, sack your accountant.

What situations do you mean? I’ve unfortunately got recent experience of my business going tits up and speaking with my luquidator the only way I’m personally liable is if I’m trading fraudently, evading tax and VAT etc basically breaking the law.

Or trading whilst knowingly insolvent, etc.
When you said the limited company means they can't come after you if it fails, that's not the case. If it fails when you were taking on new debts knowing you couldn't satisfy them, you lose limited liability.

Dave, you literally answered your question yourself, and as Counter_Puncher then said, there are additional ways such as continuing to trade while knowing you are insolvent, being overdrawn on the directors loan account, paying dividends when no profits etc.

[spudder56]

What situations do you mean? I’ve unfortunately got recent experience of my business going tits up and speaking with my luquidator the only way I’m personally liable is if I’m trading fraudently, evading tax and VAT etc basically breaking the law.

Or trading whilst knowingly insolvent, etc.
When you said the limited company means they can't come after you if it fails, that's not the case. If it fails when you were taking on new debts knowing you couldn't satisfy them, you lose limited liability.

Dave, you literally answered your question yourself, and as Counter_Puncher then said, there are additional ways such as continuing to trade while knowing you are insolvent, being overdrawn on the directors loan account, paying dividends when no profits etc.

Yes that’s correct it’s not so easy to just walk away from debts today a lot of the loopholes have been closed today as far as limited companies are concerned that’s why boxers managers etc should only sign contracts etc with the promotor personally and not a limited company this is all explained to boxers on their initial interview with their area council or at least it should be I Carnt speak for other areas but this was definitely the case in the Midlands area

[Glass Joe]

The guy on Twitter Re Kinahans - not to sure that’s wisest thing to be saying.

Agreed, I had a look at that and figured he may have strong motives for putting that stuff out there but I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. Life is too short as it is, no need to be worrying about who's knocking on your door.
BTW I'm still a loyal BN subscriber

He started his Twitter after the shooting at Katie Taylor’s fathers gym. He’s posted some interesting stuff on there. The Jamie Moore info was eye opening.

Jamie Moore info makes sense. If right Moore got paid more from them 5 shots then he did his whole Pro career.

[keithmoonhangover]

I can see allegedly surviving, he's slippier than a lubed up gimp.

[Stuarty]

I can see allegedly surviving, he's slippier than a lubed up gimp.

[Coco]

FW has had experience in these matters before, in sure he is well organised.