The TF "new owners"

Buona Fortuna

12 element wrote: »

Does that explain these kinds of cases:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mansfield-worker-gets-75000-for-unfair-dismissal-26888211.html

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/you-were-hit-by-recession-not-fraud-judge-tells-mortgage-boss-27968712.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/consultant-is-awarded-damages-for-assault-in-row-over-car-26015628.html

In two of those cases, Sutcliffe is the plaintiff, in the other its an unfair dismissal case. Together they do not warrant the taint of

seems to have been in court a good few times!

yop

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

So in other words, you don't know but you have it on sound authority froma friend of a relation of an inlaw:rolleyes:


Well, I don't live in Castlebar and I was rather hoping to get a credible answer from someone who knows rather than making the journey to Castlebar - that's the thing about these discussion forums - you can ask questions on the internet and hopefully get a credible answer - but unfortunately you can also attract useless replies as well



Why the big interest? To get an answer as to who owns the TF now - pretty much the entire point of this whole thread, which I didn't start. This is a discussion forum where people ask questions looking for answers from people who know, not looking for an interrogation on my motives, ta very much!

I call shenanigans on Sutcliffe et al owning the TF or related businesses

Yip, its sound authority and I do know. You have your credible replies from more than just me, those who have given replies are all in Castlebar and we know what goes on it Castlebar, as you said your not in the town, so think what you will.

You asked the question we answered it.

Call it what you like, but I'm afraid the truth is there.

If you want to keep up the "shenanigans" conspiracy, work away, we don't mind.

yop

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

In two of those cases, Sutcliffe is the plaintiff, in the other its an unfair dismissal case. Together they do not warrant the taint of

And if everyone who was in court wasn't allowed to own a business then there would be a lot less businesses around

glic71rods46t0

yop wrote: »

Yip, its sound authority and I do know. You have your credible replies from more than just me, those who have given replies are all in Castlebar and we know what goes on it Castlebar, as you said your not in the town, so think what you will.

I outlined the companies that the supposed new owners of the TF have - I outlined that the 3 companies allegedly used to takeover the TF and related businesses are all just zombie companies. You have come along and said you don't know what company was used and you don't care but you have it on the authority of a friends, brothers inlaw that Seamus is the new owner. I would say that you are offering unsubstantiated hearsay as fact but you are entitled to think what you will

yop wrote: »

You asked the question we answered it.

You seem to be using the royal "we" there your majesty

yop wrote: »

Call it what you like, but I'm afraid the truth is there.

Unsubstantiated hearsay being peddled as truth is what I'll call it

yop wrote: »

If you want to keep up the "shenanigans" conspiracy, work away, we don't mind.

Back to the royal "we" again - and adding a conspiracy into the mix - a bit sensationalist there Yop. I stick by my assertion of shenanigans until someone offers a bit more than

yop wrote: »

Sutcliffe own it and run it.

12 element

yop wrote: »

And if everyone who was in court wasn't allowed to own a business then there would be a lot less businesses around

Never said he shouldn't own a business because of it. I know two different people who've had run ins with this guy and he doesn't seem like a nice character. I think the court cases also show what kind of person he is (Dispute the judge awarding money to him in the case with the Renault garage)

You might know better though Yop as he is a relation of your missus mates brother.

glic71rods46t0

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

In two of those cases, Sutcliffe is the plaintiff, in the other its an unfair dismissal case. Together they do not warrant the taint of

emm, plaintiff where his car had been repossessed and he was injured trying to stop the repossession.
And plaintiff in a case where he tried to insinuate a former employee caused damage to his business but the Judge admonished him for trying to blame someone in the wrong - case thrown out!
None of the cases linked are anything to be proud of as a plaintiff or defendant!

yop

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

I outlined the companies that the supposed new owners of the TF have - I outlined that the 3 companies allegedly used to takeover the TF and related businesses are all just zombie companies. You have come along and said you don't know what company was used and you don't care but you have it on the authority of a friends, brothers inlaw that Seamus is the new owner. I would say that you are offering unsubstantiated hearsay as fact but you are entitled to think what you will


You seem to be using the royal "we" there your majesty


Unsubstantiated hearsay being peddled as truth is what I'll call it


Back to the royal "we" again - and adding a conspiracy into the mix - a bit sensationalist there Yop. I stick by my assertion of shenanigans until someone offers a bit more than

Nah 3b5vakmtdjy9o1, have it in good authority, you mightn't be digging hard enough to find the answer, but you'll get there.


Yip "We" indeed, read the thread, you can see it there in the text by a number of users.

If you want to continue with the conspiracy I'm sure as I said, you can pick up the phone and speak to the TF or Seamus Suttcliffe and they will gladly tell you the story.
If a lack of fanfare is annoying you then maybe buzz the Mayo News or Connaught Telegraph and ask them to cover it.

I'll be in the TF later tonight, I'll give Pat Jennings your regards if I see him, though since he hasn't anything to do with the hotel chances are slim.

You could drop in yourself sometime your down this way.

Anyway probably best to leave the discussion if your in Jim Corr mode

yop

12 element wrote: »

Never said he shouldn't own a business because of it. I know two different people who've had run ins with this guy and he doesn't seem like a nice character. I think the court cases also show what kind of person he is (Dispute the judge awarding money to him in the case with the Renault garage)

You might know better though Yop as he is a relation of your missus mates brother.

lol, he is no relation of mine

glic71rods46t0

yop wrote: »

Nah Fencer, have it in good authority, you mightn't be digging hard enough to find the answer, but you'll get there.


Yip "We" indeed, read the thread, you can see it there in the text by a number of users.

If you want to continue with the conspiracy I'm sure as I said, you can pick up the phone and speak to the TF or Seamus Suttcliffe and they will gladly tell you the story.
If a lack of fanfare is annoying you then maybe buzz the Mayo News or Connaught Telegraph and ask them to cover it.

I'll be in the TF later tonight, I'll give Pat Jennings your regards if I see him, though since he hasn't anything to do with the hotel chances are slim.

You could drop in yourself sometime your down this way.

Anyway probably best to leave the discussion if your in Jim Corr mode

So you have no evidence at all - the rest of your post is just deflection from the fact that you are peddling unsubstantiated hearsay as proof.
Why not hold off replying until you have some evidence to back up your "have it in good authority" nonsense

Buona Fortuna

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

emm, plaintiff where his car had been repossessed and he was injured trying to stop the repossession.
And plaintiff in a case where he tried to insinuate a former employee caused damage to his business but the Judge admonished him for trying to blame someone in the wrong - case thrown out!

The point I was making was that those three links did not support the claim originally made.

It is quite easy on here to make some claim, stick up a couple of links and say Bingo.

None of the cases linked are anything to be proud of as a plaintiff or defendant!

When is it ever? Look Ma I made bail?

12 element

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

The point I was making was that those three links did not support the claim originally made.

It is quite easy on here to make some claim, stick up a couple of links and say Bingo.




When is it ever? Look Ma I made bail?

I think you should re-read the thread. I was never posting the links in response to the claim that Seamus doesn't own the hotel. I couldn't care less who owns it!

Buona Fortuna

12 element wrote: »

Interesting reading if you google Seamus Sutcliffe name, seems to have been in court a good few times!

12 element wrote: »

Does that explain these kinds of cases:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mansfield-worker-gets-75000-for-unfair-dismissal-26888211.html

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/you-were-hit-by-recession-not-fraud-judge-tells-mortgage-boss-27968712.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/consultant-is-awarded-damages-for-assault-in-row-over-car-26015628.html

12 element wrote: »

I think you should re-read the thread. I was never posting the links in response to the claim that Seamus doesn't own the hotel. I couldn't care less who owns it!

I have re-read the thread. Your links were posted to support the disparaging claim that "he seemed to have been in court a good few times".

I similarly have little interest in the matter, but I can spot a snow job when I see one.

glic71rods46t0

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

I similarly have little interest in the matter

There are lots of issues and topics on Boards that I have no interest in. You can tell I have no interest because I don't post in such threads. But if I post in a thread entitled "TF New owners" then it would be a bit disingenuous to assert that I "have little interest in the matter".

Buona Fortuna

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

There are lots of issues and topics on Boards that I have no interest in. You can tell I have no interest because I don't post in such threads. But if I post in a thread entitled "TF New owners" then it would be a bit disingenuous to assert that I "have little interest in the matter".

FFS are you two a little double act?

As you seem to have an interest in semantics, there is a difference between little interest and no interest.

I have little interest. I have some interest but it does not keep me awake at night.

Incidentally today is St Knuts day, I had been wondering at its significance until now.

yop

No have evidence just as free to me as it is to yourself. All public knowledge. All there to you to find.
They question was asked and it's been answered.
many threads on boards where questions are asked and answered, like this one. No need for concrete evidence in links or printouts but people have the ability to accept that answer.
If the detail is freely available then you will be able to find it and it is.
threads looking like you just want to babble on than accept the answer or move on to another source if your not happy.
no point in getting in a heap over it though and I'm sure pat jennings isn't either.
I am sure we'd be interested to see your links and evidence of so called shenanigans, so post it up there, otherwise it's a case of you make daft claims as you'd say yourself.

glic71rods46t0

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

FFS are you two a little double act?

As you seem to have an interest in semantics, there is a difference between little interest and no interest.

I have little interest. I have some interest but it does not keep me awake at night.

Haha that's a laugh. You are probably the only one in the English speaking world that doesn't know that using the phrase "little interest" in the context you used it means no interest e.g. I have little interest in knitting = I have no interest in knitting.

I take it that English is not your mother tongue;)

glic71rods46t0

yop wrote: »

No have evidence just as free to me as it is to yourself. All public knowledge. All there to you to find.
They question was asked and it's been answered.
many threads on boards where questions are asked and answered, like this one. No need for concrete evidence in links or printouts but people have the ability to accept that answer.
If the detail is freely available then you will be able to find it and it is.
threads looking like you just want to babble on than accept the answer or move on to another source if your not happy.
no point in getting in a heap over it though and I'm sure pat jennings isn't either.
I am sure we'd be interested to see your links and evidence of so called shenanigans, so post it up there, otherwise it's a case of you make daft claims as you'd say yourself.

Haha, nice try, now I know you have no proof at all and you're just spoofing with some hearsay but no proof. You're the one making the claim that Sutcliffe owns the hotel, I say you're wrong, I have done a CRO search for all companies owned by this guy and none has a mortgage charge on the TF (anyone buying the premises would have to raise a mortgage on the premises - that's how business works).

I say Sutcliffe does not own the TF - I say that there is no evidence to show that he owns it.
You say, as a fact, that he does own it.
The ball is in your court to present the evidence that he owns it.
Put up the evidence you claim to have or I call BS.

yop

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

Haha, nice try, now I know you have no proof at all and you're just spoofing with some hearsay but no proof. You're the one making the claim that Sutcliffe owns the hotel, I say you're wrong, I have done a CRO search for all companies owned by this guy and none has a mortgage charge on the TF (anyone buying the premises would have to raise a mortgage on the premises - that's how business works).

I say Sutcliffe does not own the TF - I say that there is no evidence to show that he owns it.
You say, as a fact, that he does own it.
The ball is in your court to present the evidence that he owns it.
Put up the evidence you claim to have or I call BS.

Nah its sound, we know who owns it, I'm in here at the minute, If I head down to the theatre I'll let them know there is a lad awful concerned about them on a public forum, I'm sure it will give them a good laugh.

At the end of the you believe what you want, it makes no odds to me or anyone else, those who know it and its common knowledge, knows who owns it. Very simple logic to anyone really.
No BS at all, just pointing out the facts and entertaining a dog with a bone.

Its simples really.

glic71rods46t0

yop wrote: »

Nah its sound, we know who owns it, I'm in here at the minute, If I head down to the theatre I'll let them know there is a lad awful concerned about them on a public forum, I'm sure it will give them a good laugh.

At the end of the you believe what you want, it makes no odds to me or anyone else, those who know it and its common knowledge, knows who owns it. Very simple logic to anyone really.
No BS at all, just pointing out the facts and entertaining a dog with a bone.

Its simples really.

Now you have shown your true colours. It didn't take me long to show you up:cool:

yop

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

Now you have shown your true colours. It didn't take me long to show you up:cool:

LOL go on, tell us, since you have all the evidence. We'd be delighted to know

Or am I Pat Jennings or Seamus Sutticliffe now lol

Jim Corr was never in it.

glic71rods46t0

yop wrote: »

LOL go on, tell us, since you have all the evidence. We'd be delighted to know

Or am I Pat Jennings or Seamus Sutticliffe now lol

Jim Corr was never in it.

You're the one claiming to have the evidence but you won't post it up coz your spoofing and have been called on it. I don't know what your name is but if I was to guess I'd say Walter Mitty:cool:

yop

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

You're the one claiming to have the evidence but you won't post it up coz your spoofing and have been called on it. I don't know what your name is but if I was to guess I'd say Walter Mitty:cool:

Yip you got me fencer, total spoofer, absolutely indeedy.
Walter Mitty indeed you got me on that one too.

When will the award be night be? Can we have them in the TF and Seamus Sutcliffe can present them.
I'll arrange it tonight for ya.
There might even fanfare and all, now that will surely get you going.

Somethings never change.

glic71rods46t0

yop wrote: »

Yip you got me fencer, total spoofer, absolutely indeedy.
Walter Mitty indeed you got me on that one too.

When will the award be night be? Can we have them in the TF and Seamus Sutcliffe can present them.
I'll arrange it tonight for ya.
There might even fanfare and all, now that will surely get you going.

Somethings never change.

You mentioned you were going to the TF tonight. I guess you have had quite a few bevvies already. Enjoy but I think you may have had enough for tonite. Hope the head doesn't hurt too bad in the morning:eek:

yop

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

You mentioned you were going to the TF tonight. I guess you have had quite a few bevvies already. Enjoy but I think you may have had enough for tonite. Hope the head doesn't hurt too bad in the morning:eek:

I don't drink, but thanks for the concern.

glic71rods46t0

well the Walter Mitty routine is all the more impressive then! Well done you

Buona Fortuna

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

Haha that's a laugh. You are probably the only one in the English speaking world that doesn't know that using the phrase "little interest" in the context you used it means no interest e.g. I have little interest in knitting = I have no interest in knitting.

I take it that English is not your mother tongue;)

Well the "English speaking world" is quite a big one but you are right.

I should have chosen my words more carefully.

But this is a sideshow on a sideshow and doesn't take away from the point I was making. That being it was unfair of your buddy to imply that Sutcliff was "no stranger to the courts". I don't know if he is or isn't but the links that he posted did not stand scrutiny.

12 element

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Well the "English speaking world" is quite a big one but you are right.

I should have chosen my words more carefully.

But this is a sideshow on a sideshow and doesn't take away from the point I was making. That being it was unfair of your buddy to imply that Sutcliff was "no stranger to the courts". I don't know if he is or isn't but the links that he posted did not stand scrutiny.

I'm not his buddy. The statement was fair and I think the links made my point. You might have a different opinion on it and that's fine by me.

glic71rods46t0

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Well the "English speaking world" is quite a big one but you are right.

I should have chosen my words more carefully.

But this is a sideshow on a sideshow and doesn't take away from the point I was making. That being it was unfair of your buddy to imply that Sutcliff was "no stranger to the courts". I don't know if he is or isn't but the links that he posted did not stand scrutiny.

First off, I have no buddy on this forum. I know no-one here.

Secondly, yes the links do stand scrutiny. All cases referred to were real cases reported in real newspapers and none of them show Mr Sutcliffe in a good light, in fact, they are a damning indictment of the man

Buona Fortuna

12 element wrote: »

I'm not his buddy. The statement was fair and I think the links made my point. You might have a different opinion on it and that's fine by me.

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

First off, I have no buddy on this forum. I know no-one here.

Secondly, yes the links do stand scrutiny. All cases referred to were real cases reported in real newspapers and none of them show Mr Sutcliffe in a good light, in fact, they are a damning indictment of the man

Well I hope you're both very happy.

Happy St Knuts day.

12 element

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Well I hope you're both very happy.

Happy St Knuts day.

I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up about all this?