At least the club isn't owned by someone who likes to waste time and money on unnecessary court cases.
I had made my mind up between the pause of Clive asking...”So Dale if you don’t mind me asking where has your money come from”
Really brings in to question Hoffmans competence. At the point Evans became part of the consortium we all knew it was bollocks but Hoffman welcomed him in and said he'd had proof of funds.
All well and good saying now he sussed it out weeks ago but how did he let it go on for so long and why wasn't there a statement as soon as he knew he was full of shit?
While on the one hand I think Dale has mental issues you have to wonder why his friends and family have let this continue to the point where he could end up in serious trouble.
All well and good saying now he sussed it out weeks ago but how did he let it go on for so long and why wasn't there a statement as soon as he knew he was full of shit?
While on the one hand I think Dale has mental issues you have to wonder why his friends and family have let this continue to the point where he could end up in serious trouble.
I think it's fraudulent misrepresentation....but it's up to the judge to interpret the law, not that I expect SISU to sue him for financial reward. They might go for him with an injunction requiring he desist from any further public statement regarding SISU and/or CCFC and that he makes a full retraction. I can't see them thinking that a damages claim would be worth the bother, especially as there are no tangible/obvious financial damages that have arisen through his actions.
As for court action, if the bloke actually does have issues his family should be phoning up everybody he has pissed off, solicitors, people who's houses he has pretended to buy etc and explain and get him away from the internet while he gets sorted.
Fair enough it started as somebody pretending they were buying CCFC, one of those you can put it down to a prank, but it's gone to making up fraudulent emails from legal firms, pretending to buy people's houses and letting them down. You pretend to buy the wrong persons house and fuck it up and you end up getting a pasting.
Fair enough it started as somebody pretending they were buying CCFC, one of those you can put it down to a prank, but it's gone to making up fraudulent emails from legal firms, pretending to buy people's houses and letting them down. You pretend to buy the wrong persons house and fuck it up and you end up getting a pasting.
Why? I pointed out it was bollocks at the time, I was told that Gary Hoffman is a successful businessman and wouldn't be fooled by it. He's had his pants down like everybody else based on nothing and he let it go on to save face.
The least Hoffman could be doing is speaking with Evans family and trying to use his contacts to get the bloke help, instead he invited him in and blew smoke up his arse. Elliott posing for pictures with him and giving it the handshake and now look? They look silly and they just distance themselves from a bloke who looks to have issues.
CWR issuing an apology. They don't need to do due diligence, they present what appears to be a news story and let people make their own minds up. The BBC is impartial.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
a) The Mad Hatter will have the piss royally extracted from him.
b) Do you really think he will shut up? I'm expecting him to announce his intention to sponsor the Godiva Festival 2021any time, he'll have the Ginger Hobbit lined up already no doubt.
Still don't agree with that, it is one of the lines that Gilbert used to use that he just puts things there for people to make their own minds up on it. Knowing full well how they would take it.
The issue isn't so much the way CWR reported it, it was the way they were trying to spin it up massively. When the guy is asking you how to get in touch with the club and you are giving the bloke Mark Hornby's email it kind of shows how serious the bloke is.
They are meant to do a bit of digging and due diligence to make sure that they don't just let any old wally with tall story onto their programming i.e. to sus out if they're broadcasting worthwhile content or total rot.
What would that involve then? How is that behaving impartially?
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
First you have to have enough money to buy a computer and photoshop.. then the world's your oyster.
They wouldn't breach impartiality by checking him out to see if he's genuine. Otherwise, any of us, including me or you, could equally expect to make up a tall story about buying CCFC and expect a full segment prime time interview. News organisations like the BBC usually do their homework on this to see if something is newsworthy or not.
Yes. I know how they work a lot better than you do. Like I said, they're not presenting the story with any sort of slant, he had provided (admittedly shaky) evidence of wealth. Easier to get the story out and let it be disproved. CWR would have no right to see other personal data as proof.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
One thing I don't get is, why did he always give himself such a short timeframe? Ie. Saying last night it was on and expected it to go through late last night. Live in the bask for the fake glory for a bit longer and just say it's going through within the next few weeks, Dale! The way he plays it he makes this claims and immediately looks an idiot when it doesn't come off within his ridiculously short, stated timeframe.
They bigged up the story and span it as if he was a credible candidate to invest in / take over the club. Which is clearly untrue. They hung their credibility on it by doing so, hardly neutral. They decided he was serious or they wouldn't have put him on the radio, simple as.
P.S. how do you know anything about my knoweldge of the media? That's a bit of a Dale Evans style tall claim!
Media outlets are impartial. They can’t make investigations - it’s their job to just show the story - they didn’t big it up they stated he claimed to have won the money. From that interview alone most would have concluded he was an idiot with no money.
I don't think you are in any position to criticise (when you no facts about how much of light of the day GH actually gave this knob). May only been 5 mins or 2 min phone conversation and one statement saying now keep your gob shut Mr Evans.
GH has to explore all options. and btw hes not offering counselling services to the knob.
Don't agree with that. On that logic, literally anyone could invent the same story and get on their programme. The reason news outlets employ researchers is to avoid this kind of scenario.
If you think they didn't big it up then you obviously missed CWR trailing the DE interview saying "CCFC fans should tune in as we've got big news". I call that "bigging it up", even if you don't.
He made a statement welcoming him in to the consortium to the public which a lot of people would have taken as proof it was real. Then Elliott was posing for pictures with him.
Doing that isn't "exploring options".
They bigged it up during the day. It was that that annoyed me about it rather than the interview.
If the Dale Evans backlash is bad now, imagine what it'll be like when SISU sell Bayliss to fund the court case to sue him.
Which no doubt attracted some listeners. Eakins interview left you in little doubt he had no money.
