Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
Sports => Football => Topic started by: Sam on November 24, 2014, 04:34:45 PM
-
Lets keep track of $$ made and owe and since Tim Kee took over.
Acquired
November 2014 = $9,964,368.00 from T&T government.
June 2014 = $4.8 million from FIFA for Gold Project
June 2015 = Gold Cup Qualification?
November 2014 = US$75,000 from Caribbean Cup Second Place
June 2013 = Gold Cup Qualification?
2013 = Sports Company and the Ministry of Sport given close to $7 million to the TTFA development programme, including close to $4 million in investment for the (Concacaf) Gold Cup campaign.
2013 = $1.7 million on JOMA deal.
November 2012 = US$75,000 from Caribbean Cup Second Place
FIFA stipend = US$60,000 every three months
2014 T&T vs Ecuador - gate receipt (soon to be release)?
Owe
13 2006 World Cup team?
Russell Latapy?
Anton Corneal?
PTSC?
Owe CAL $1.2 million dollars for Argentina charter.
Made
2013 OSN Cup?
Argentina Match?
Iran Match?
TV rights?
2013 Gold Cup participation?
Paid
11 million in debts? so they say.
Anyone want to add more?
-
November 2014 = $9,964,368.00 from T&T government.
That acquired and gone. So scratch that off.
-
I imagine that the Joma deal was mostly kit, not cash.
-
Add Wim to the list...big secret.
Lets keep track of $$ made and owe and since Tim Kee took over.
Acquired
November 2014 = $9,964,368.00 from T&T government.
June 2014 = $4.8 million from FIFA for Gold Project
June 2015 = Gold Cup Qualification?
November 2014 = US$75,000 from Caribbean Cup Second Place
June 2013 = Gold Cup Qualification?
2013 = Sports Company and the Ministry of Sport given close to $7 million to the TTFA development programme, including close to $4 million in investment for the (Concacaf) Gold Cup campaign.
2013 = $1.7 million on JOMA deal.
November 2012 = US$75,000 from Caribbean Cup Second Place
FIFA stipend = US$60,000 every three months
2014 T&T vs Ecuador - gate receipt (soon to be release)?
Owe
13 2006 World Cup team?
Russell Latapy?
Anton Corneal?
PTSC?
Owe Wim $2M
Owe CAL $1.2 million dollars for Argentina charter.
Made
2013 OSN Cup?
Argentina Match?
Iran Match?
TV rights?
2013 Gold Cup participation?
Paid
11 million in debts? so they say.
Anyone want to add more?
-
June 2015
FIFA give TTFA one million US dollars.
Tim Kee say he did not get the 9 million dollars and Sancho say he lie.
-
June 2015
FIFA give TTFA one million US dollars.
Tim Kee say he did not get the 9 million dollars and Sancho say he lie.
How Sancho could say "he lie" when Sancho self hold up the payments wanting to see audits? Allyuh have to be more critical of what allyuh reading and more analytical as well. The $9 million dollars was promised by Griffith, then Sancho came in and put conditions on the payments. Sancho didn't say the TTFA get the money, he said almost 90% of it was spent. What he didn't say is who spend it... or that this bullshit WPL 'tournament" that he forced on the TTFA costs $1.7 million dollars, which came out of the $9 nillion already promised to the FA. So he forced it on them, and now forcing them to pay for it too. And on top of that, he still ent release the rest of the money yet, only enough to fund the Gold Cup tournament.
-
June 2015
FIFA give TTFA one million US dollars.
Tim Kee say he did not get the 9 million dollars and Sancho say he lie.
How Sancho could say "he lie" when Sancho self hold up the payments wanting to see audits? Allyuh have to be more critical of what allyuh reading and more analytical as well. The $9 million dollars was promised by Griffith, then Sancho came in and put conditions on the payments. Sancho didn't say the TTFA get the money, he said almost 90% of it was spent. What he didn't say is who spend it... or that this bullshit WPL 'tournament" that he forced on the TTFA costs $1.7 million dollars, which came out of the $9 nillion already promised to the FA. So he forced it on them, and now forcing them to pay for it too. And on top of that, he still ent release the rest of the money yet, only enough to fund the Gold Cup tournament.
Sancho has not put in any additional conditions that were not in the original cabinet vote. In fact, he's let funding go through even though those conditions still haven't been met. He's trying to work with the TTFA through their problems. Yet people like you want to lie to cause a rift. I guess you have your reasons.
-
Sancho has not put in any additional conditions that were not in the original cabinet vote. In fact, he's let funding go through even though those conditions still haven't been met. He's trying to work with the TTFA through their problems. Yet people like you want to lie to cause a rift. I guess you have your reasons.
The cabinet note did not condition release of the funds on the TTFA providing audits from 2008- present. Put another way, since you apparently can't understand plain English, Rupert Griffith and cabinet didn't say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards. Since I'm a liar and you want to impugn my character I dare you to prove me wrong.
-
Sancho has not put in any additional conditions that were not in the original cabinet vote. In fact, he's let funding go through even though those conditions still haven't been met. He's trying to work with the TTFA through their problems. Yet people like you want to lie to cause a rift. I guess you have your reasons.
The cabinet note did not condition release of the funds on the TTFA providing audits from 2008- present. Put another way, since you apparently can't understand plain English, Rupert Griffith and cabinet didn't say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards. Since I'm a liar and you want to impugn my character I dare you to prove me wrong.
Question: Have you seen the cabinet note? Obviously not. Therefore you are at best guessing or at worst purposely trying to mislead and misinform.
You talk about plain English? Do you not understand that I have seen this cabinet note and therefore quoted FACT?
You are correct in that the cabinet note does not say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards." It states that a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14. Unfortunately, TTFA's accountants can't produce these until 2008/9/10/11/12 are completed. So after a satisfactory explanation from Tim-Kee and the accountants, funds were released on the understanding that the accounts would be produced in some form.
So you see
a) it was not Sancho that ordered the accounts, however, quite rightly, he insisted that the conditions be met
b) he allowed funds to be dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts
There you go...plain English
Only you can say if your character is impugned. Was you misinformed by your source?
-
Come nah man Sancho just run money for Tim Kee and Phillips to get there development plans up and running. If not you are the worst Minister ever. Look how much development programs Tim Kee and Phillips put in place with ALL the money the other sports ministers gave to them without reservation.
-
Sancho has not put in any additional conditions that were not in the original cabinet vote. In fact, he's let funding go through even though those conditions still haven't been met. He's trying to work with the TTFA through their problems. Yet people like you want to lie to cause a rift. I guess you have your reasons.
The cabinet note did not condition release of the funds on the TTFA providing audits from 2008- present. Put another way, since you apparently can't understand plain English, Rupert Griffith and cabinet didn't say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards. Since I'm a liar and you want to impugn my character I dare you to prove me wrong.
Question: Have you seen the cabinet note? Obviously not. Therefore you are at best guessing or at worst purposely trying to mislead and misinform.
You talk about plain English? Do you not understand that I have seen this cabinet note and therefore quoted FACT?
You are correct in that the cabinet note does not say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards." It states that a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14. Unfortunately, TTFA's accountants can't produce these until 2008/9/10/11/12 are completed. So after a satisfactory explanation from Tim-Kee and the accountants, funds were released on the understanding that the accounts would be produced in some form.
So you see
a) it was not Sancho that ordered the accounts, however, quite rightly, he insisted that the conditions be met
b) he allowed funds to be dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts
There you go...plain English
Only you can say if your character is impugned. Was you misinformed by your source?
Not taking sides here but from an accountability, transparency perspective I believe TTFA shouldn't have an issue with giving account for the federation... It should be mandatory in fact because of the dark cloud hanging over the federation and people associated to it...
-
Sancho has not put in any additional conditions that were not in the original cabinet vote. In fact, he's let funding go through even though those conditions still haven't been met. He's trying to work with the TTFA through their problems. Yet people like you want to lie to cause a rift. I guess you have your reasons.
The cabinet note did not condition release of the funds on the TTFA providing audits from 2008- present. Put another way, since you apparently can't understand plain English, Rupert Griffith and cabinet didn't say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards. Since I'm a liar and you want to impugn my character I dare you to prove me wrong.
Question: Have you seen the cabinet note? Obviously not. Therefore you are at best guessing or at worst purposely trying to mislead and misinform.
You talk about plain English? Do you not understand that I have seen this cabinet note and therefore quoted FACT?
You are correct in that the cabinet note does not say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards." It states that a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14. Unfortunately, TTFA's accountants can't produce these until 2008/9/10/11/12 are completed. So after a satisfactory explanation from Tim-Kee and the accountants, funds were released on the understanding that the accounts would be produced in some form.
So you see
a) it was not Sancho that ordered the accounts, however, quite rightly, he insisted that the conditions be met
b) he allowed funds to be dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts
There you go...plain English
Only you can say if your character is impugned. Was you misinformed by your source?
simple question, how much money has TTFA received to date from the 9 million???
-
Hutson Charles,
Marvin Faustin
SH
Unless they were paid backwages unbeknownst to us.
VB
-
Question: Have you seen the cabinet note? Obviously not. Therefore you are at best guessing or at worst purposely trying to mislead and misinform.
You talk about plain English? Do you not understand that I have seen this cabinet note and therefore quoted FACT?
-----
So you see
a) it was not Sancho that ordered the accounts, however, quite rightly, he insisted that the conditions be met
b) he allowed funds to be dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts
There you go...plain English
Only you can say if your character is impugned. Was you misinformed by your source?
I was privy to the communications between Anthony Creed, Griffith and the FA... I didn't see anything that placed a condition on the disbursement of funds. I have no reason to believe I was misinformed and I have no reason to lie to anybody on this forum. None of this is important to me to lie about anything, so I take great offense to you casually accusing me of lying.
-
Sancho has not put in any additional conditions that were not in the original cabinet vote. In fact, he's let funding go through even though those conditions still haven't been met. He's trying to work with the TTFA through their problems. Yet people like you want to lie to cause a rift. I guess you have your reasons.
How is he trying to work with the FA... has the Ministry released the funds to pay the coaches?
-
Question: Have you seen the cabinet note? Obviously not. Therefore you are at best guessing or at worst purposely trying to mislead and misinform.
You talk about plain English? Do you not understand that I have seen this cabinet note and therefore quoted FACT?
-----
So you see
a) it was not Sancho that ordered the accounts, however, quite rightly, he insisted that the conditions be met
b) he allowed funds to be dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts
There you go...plain English
Only you can say if your character is impugned. Was you misinformed by your source?
I was privy to the communications between Anthony Creed, Griffith and the FA... I didn't see anything that placed a condition on the disbursement of funds. I have no reason to believe I was misinformed and I have no reason to lie to anybody on this forum. None of this is important to me to lie about anything, so I take great offense to you casually accusing me of lying.
Damn those mischief makers not sharing the cabinet note with you. At least now we know that were not lying, simply misinformed, as I suggested. So now we've cleared that up, can we expect an apology from you?
-
Sancho has not put in any additional conditions that were not in the original cabinet vote. In fact, he's let funding go through even though those conditions still haven't been met. He's trying to work with the TTFA through their problems. Yet people like you want to lie to cause a rift. I guess you have your reasons.
How is he trying to work with the FA... has the Ministry released the funds to pay the coaches?
Yes. And once the next request for the remainder is received, that will be paid too!
-
Yes. And once the next request for the remainder is received, that will be paid too!
Really?? So the coaches haven't been paid arrears (dating back to Jan-Feb) from other TTFA funds... they were paid from the $9 million MoS appropriation?
When you're finished pondering that one, tell us also how much of that $9 million has been spent. Inquiring minds want to know.
-
Question: Have you seen the cabinet note? Obviously not. Therefore you are at best guessing or at worst purposely trying to mislead and misinform.
You talk about plain English? Do you not understand that I have seen this cabinet note and therefore quoted FACT?
-----
So you see
a) it was not Sancho that ordered the accounts, however, quite rightly, he insisted that the conditions be met
b) he allowed funds to be dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts
There you go...plain English
Only you can say if your character is impugned. Was you misinformed by your source?
I was privy to the communications between Anthony Creed, Griffith and the FA... I didn't see anything that placed a condition on the disbursement of funds. I have no reason to believe I was misinformed and I have no reason to lie to anybody on this forum. None of this is important to me to lie about anything, so I take great offense to you casually accusing me of lying.
Shel Bakes it have a google link to that info you willing to share. Sure others will like to do a cursory search also.
-
Yes. And once the next request for the remainder is received, that will be paid too!
Really?? So the coaches haven't been paid arrears (dating back to Jan-Feb) from other TTFA funds... they were paid from the $9 million MoS appropriation?
When you're finished pondering that one, tell us also how much of that $9 million has been spent. Inquiring minds want to know.
You would have to check with your source about how/who TTFA pay. I can only advise on allocations from the cabinet note, some of which was specifically to pay arrears for technical staff and players, staff stipends from 2012/13, and staff salaries from WC14 campaign. The period you are referring to is the final tranche of technical staff remuneration, which will be paid once requested.
You're trying to dig yourself out of a hole, but the fact is, as you admitted, your sources are misleading you. Stop acting as their patsy, man up and apologise for your mistakes.
-
Yes. And once the next request for the remainder is received, that will be paid too!
Really?? So the coaches haven't been paid arrears (dating back to Jan-Feb) from other TTFA funds... they were paid from the $9 million MoS appropriation?
When you're finished pondering that one, tell us also how much of that $9 million has been spent. Inquiring minds want to know.
You would have to check with your source about how/who TTFA pay. I can only advise on allocations from the cabinet note, some of which was specifically to pay arrears for technical staff and players, staff stipends from 2012/13, and staff salaries from WC14 campaign. The period you are referring to is the final tranche of technical staff remuneration, which will be paid once requested.
You're trying to dig yourself out of a hole, but the fact is, as you admitted, your sources are misleading you. Stop acting as their patsy, man up and apologise for your mistakes.
but FS I find you are deflecting from what that amount is exactly??
someone asked about, is it 8 million? no one has answered to date, what allocations are left to pay out?
-
You would have to check with your source about how/who TTFA pay. I can only advise on allocations from the cabinet note, some of which was specifically to pay arrears for technical staff and players, staff stipends from 2012/13, and staff salaries from WC14 campaign. The period you are referring to is the final tranche of technical staff remuneration, which will be paid once requested.
Wait... so how could you say that the Ministry released "the funds" for the coaches to be paid, now yuh saying the Ministry hasn't released the funding since January? Meanwhile Sancho running around in the press making it seem like the TTFA f**king up, and you coming here and 'misleading' folks, let's call it that, that the Ministry paying the salaries and arrears as promised. The Ministry also promised to fund the Gold Cup campaign, now it coming out that money almost done... well how much is left? Simple question. 90% means less than a million dollars left in the account, tell us how much is left, because according to the information I have, Sancho might be "misleading" people as well.
You're trying to dig yourself out of a hole, but the fact is, as you admitted, your sources are misleading you. Stop acting as their patsy, man up and apologise for your mistakes.
What "hole" am I trying to dig myself out of? And when did I admit I was being mislead? You need to have one of, your computer, your eyes, your head... or your reading comprehension checked, because I said just the opposite:
"I have no reason to believe I was misinformed and I have no reason to lie to anybody on this forum."
-
You would have to check with your source about how/who TTFA pay. I can only advise on allocations from the cabinet note, some of which was specifically to pay arrears for technical staff and players, staff stipends from 2012/13, and staff salaries from WC14 campaign. The period you are referring to is the final tranche of technical staff remuneration, which will be paid once requested.
Wait... so how could you say that the Ministry released "the funds" for the coaches to be paid, now yuh saying the Ministry hasn't released the funding since January? Meanwhile Sancho running around in the press making it seem like the TTFA f**king up, and you coming here and 'misleading' folks, let's call it that, that the Ministry paying the salaries and arrears as promised. The Ministry also promised to fund the Gold Cup campaign, now it coming out that money almost done... well how much is left? Simple question. 90% means less than a million dollars left in the account, tell us how much is left, because according to the information I have, Sancho might be "misleading" people as well.
You're trying to dig yourself out of a hole, but the fact is, as you admitted, your sources are misleading you. Stop acting as their patsy, man up and apologise for your mistakes.
What "hole" am I trying to dig myself out of? And when did I admit I was being mislead? You need to have one of, your computer, your eyes, your head... or your reading comprehension checked, because I said just the opposite:
"I have no lireason to beeve I was misinformed and I have no reason to lie to anybody on this forum."
You said: "What he didn't say is who spend it... or that this bullshit WPL 'tournament" that he forced on the TTFA costs $1.7 million dollars, which came out of the $9 nillion already promised to the FA. " This is a lie or misinformation you have received. As you would say "show me the proof of this" But you can't because it is a lie. Is this really too difficult for your simple brain to absorb.
You said "I have no lireason to beeve I was misinformed and I have no reason to lie to anybody on this forum." This is not about opinion or conjecture. I have working knowledge of this funding. You have hearsay. If you were not misinformed, then you are purposely stating false information. It's really very straightforward. WPL has it's own cabinet note completely separate from TTFA's.
-
You said: "What he didn't say is who spend it... or that this bullshit WPL 'tournament" that he forced on the TTFA costs $1.7 million dollars, which came out of the $9 nillion already promised to the FA. " This is a lie or misinformation you have received. As you would say "show me the proof of this" But you can't because it is a lie. Is this really too difficult for your simple brain to absorb.
You said "I have no lireason to beeve I was misinformed and I have no reason to lie to anybody on this forum." This is not about opinion or conjecture. I have working knowledge of this funding. You have hearsay. If you were not misinformed, then you are purposely stating false information. It's really very straightforward. WPL has it's own cabinet note completely separate from TTFA's.
Let me take your hand and slowly walk you thru this... THIS is what the whole "I have no reason to believe I was being misled" comment refers to:
The cabinet note did not condition release of the funds on the TTFA providing audits from 2008- present. Put another way, since you apparently can't understand plain English, Rupert Griffith and cabinet didn't say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards. Since I'm a liar and you want to impugn my character I dare you to prove me wrong.
You're welcome.
As for the WPL funding, you might want to check with Anthony Creed and ensure that he wasn't spending from the November allocation prior to the Cabinet approving the note near the end of last month.
-
You said: "What he didn't say is who spend it... or that this bullshit WPL 'tournament" that he forced on the TTFA costs $1.7 million dollars, which came out of the $9 nillion already promised to the FA. " This is a lie or misinformation you have received. As you would say "show me the proof of this" But you can't because it is a lie. Is this really too difficult for your simple brain to absorb.
You said "I have no lireason to beeve I was misinformed and I have no reason to lie to anybody on this forum." This is not about opinion or conjecture. I have working knowledge of this funding. You have hearsay. If you were not misinformed, then you are purposely stating false information. It's really very straightforward. WPL has it's own cabinet note completely separate from TTFA's.
Let me take your hand and slowly walk you thru this... THIS is what the whole "I have no reason to believe I was being misled" comment refers to:
The cabinet note did not condition release of the funds on the TTFA providing audits from 2008- present. Put another way, since you apparently can't understand plain English, Rupert Griffith and cabinet didn't say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards. Since I'm a liar and you want to impugn my character I dare you to prove me wrong.
Right. So you're now admitting that you were misinformed. Correct? As that statement , as explained before, is simply not true. TTFA's accountants said they need to complete audits from 2008 onwards to produce the required audit from 2013/4. Can this really be any easier for you to understand?
You're welcome.
As for the WPL funding, you might want to check with Anthony Creed and ensure that he wasn't spending from the November allocation prior to the Cabinet approving the note near the end of last month.
-
Right. So you're now admitting that you were misinformed. Correct? As that statement , as explained before, is simply not true. TTFA's accountants said they need to complete audits from 2008 onwards to produce the required audit from 2013/4. Can this really be any easier for you to understand?
My 'understanding' is not at issue here, I stand by what I said. The documents I saw made no reference to conditions being placed on the release of funds to pay the salaries and arrears.
End of.
And yuh conveniently finding time to answer everything but how much of the $9 million appropriation has been spent and how much remains. We have time.
-
Right. So you're now admitting that you were misinformed. Correct? As that statement , as explained before, is simply not true. TTFA's accountants said they need to complete audits from 2008 onwards to produce the required audit from 2013/4. Can this really be any easier for you to understand?
My 'understanding' is not at issue here, I stand by what I said. The documents I saw made no reference to conditions being placed on the release of funds to pay the salaries and arrears.
End of.
And yuh conveniently finding time to answer everything but how much of the $9 million appropriation has been spent and how much remains. We have time.
Well, you saw the wrong documents. And you're conveniently finding time to ask questions instead of admitting that were duped by your friends.
-
Well, you saw the wrong documents. And you're conveniently finding time to ask questions instead of admitting that were duped by your friends.
Okay... I was "duped by my friends."
Now answer the question hypocrite: How much of the $9 million appropriation has been spent and how much remains? Should be simple enough.
-
Well, you saw the wrong documents. And you're conveniently finding time to ask questions instead of admitting that were duped by your friends.
Okay... I was "duped by my friends."
Now answer the question hypocrite: How much of the $9 million appropriation has been spent and how much remains? Should be simple enough.
So ask your friend. Should be easy enough. Deduct what they have received from what was promised.
-
Well, you saw the wrong documents. And you're conveniently finding time to ask questions instead of admitting that were duped by your friends.
Okay... I was "duped by my friends."
Now answer the question hypocrite: How much of the $9 million appropriation has been spent and how much remains? Should be simple enough.
So ask your friend. Should be easy enough. Deduct what they have received from what was promised.
Why not just tell us FS?
-
Well, you saw the wrong documents. And you're conveniently finding time to ask questions instead of admitting that were duped by your friends.
Okay... I was "duped by my friends."
Now answer the question hypocrite: How much of the $9 million appropriation has been spent and how much remains? Should be simple enough.
So ask your friend. Should be easy enough. Deduct what they have received from what was promised.
Why not just tell us FS?
I can't tell you exactly at this point as the amount has decreased again today when a new request came in. But once you take into account the money set aside for the Miami camp and Gold Cup all that's left is enough to cover Harts salary and the other technical staff. Then, every item on the note would have been met.
But I'm getting tired of correcting untruths and then having to justify everything I write. Never before has this forum received direct information from the Ministry, yet when I try to correct the untruths being told I get dragged into these petty arguments.
"How Sancho could say "he lie" when Sancho self hold up the payments wanting to see audits?" " The $9 million dollars was promised by Griffith, then Sancho came in and put conditions on the payments. Sancho didn't say the TTFA get the money, he said almost 90% of it was spent. What he didn't say is who spend it... or that this bullshit WPL 'tournament" that he forced on the TTFA costs $1.7 million dollars, which came out of the $9 nillion already promised to the FA."
These statements are untrue. I corrected them: Sancho has not put in any additional conditions that were not in the original cabinet vote. In fact, he's let funding go through even though those conditions still haven't been met. He's trying to work with the TTFA through their problems. No money from TTFA's note will be deducted for WPL or any other project other that stipulated on the note. To do this would require a return to cabinet for their approval.
"The cabinet note did not condition release of the funds on the TTFA providing audits from 2008- present. Put another way, since you apparently can't understand plain English, Rupert Griffith and cabinet didn't say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards. "
Untrue. I corrected it: You are correct in that the cabinet note does not say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards." It states that a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14. Unfortunately, TTFA's accountants can't produce these until 2008/9/10/11/12 are completed. So after a satisfactory explanation from Tim-Kee and the accountants, funds were released on the understanding that the accounts would be produced in some form.
So you see
a) it was not Sancho that ordered the accounts, however, quite rightly, he insisted that the conditions be met
b) he allowed funds to be dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts
"I was privy to the communications between Anthony Creed, Griffith and the FA... I didn't see anything that placed a condition on the disbursement of funds."
Not sure what he was reading because as I already stated, a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14.
"So the coaches haven't been paid arrears (dating back to Jan-Feb) from other TTFA funds... they were paid from the $9 million MoS appropriation?"
Asked and answered: You would have to check with your source about how/who TTFA pay. I can only advise on allocations from the cabinet note, some of which was specifically to pay arrears for technical staff and players, staff stipends from 2012/13, and staff salaries from WC14 campaign. The period you are referring to is the final tranche of technical staff remuneration, which will be paid once requested.
"My 'understanding' is not at issue here, I stand by what I said. The documents I saw made no reference to conditions being placed on the release of funds to pay the salaries and arrears."
So despite me explaining the conditions on the cabinet note, our boy still insists that he knows different. So, why should I waste my time on idiots like that? The bottom line is that anything Sancho or I say, Bakes will pick apart or criticize. Fair enough if you want to argue with opinions, but what is the point of me writing the truth if I then have to defend myself time after time.
Now laughing boy will come back and have a jab because I don't know the exact figure, yet he doesn't know the actual figure on the cabinet note to start with, yet apparently he's seen it. (Let's see how long it takes him to get the true figure...and, hey, get your guy to check the conditions while he's there)
-
Well, you saw the wrong documents. And you're conveniently finding time to ask questions instead of admitting that were duped by your friends.
Okay... I was "duped by my friends."
Now answer the question hypocrite: How much of the $9 million appropriation has been spent and how much remains? Should be simple enough.
So ask your friend. Should be easy enough. Deduct what they have received from what was promised.
Why not just tell us FS?
I can't tell you exactly at this point as the amount has decreased again today when a new request came in. But once you take into account the money set aside for the Miami camp and Gold Cup all that's left is enough to cover Harts salary and the other technical staff. Then, every item on the note would have been met.
But I'm getting tired of correcting untruths and then having to justify everything I write. Never before has this forum received direct information from the Ministry, yet when I try to correct the untruths being told I get dragged into these petty arguments.
"How Sancho could say "he lie" when Sancho self hold up the payments wanting to see audits?" " The $9 million dollars was promised by Griffith, then Sancho came in and put conditions on the payments. Sancho didn't say the TTFA get the money, he said almost 90% of it was spent. What he didn't say is who spend it... or that this bullshit WPL 'tournament" that he forced on the TTFA costs $1.7 million dollars, which came out of the $9 nillion already promised to the FA."
These statements are untrue. I corrected them: Sancho has not put in any additional conditions that were not in the original cabinet vote. In fact, he's let funding go through even though those conditions still haven't been met. He's trying to work with the TTFA through their problems. No money from TTFA's note will be deducted for WPL or any other project other that stipulated on the note. To do this would require a return to cabinet for their approval.
"The cabinet note did not condition release of the funds on the TTFA providing audits from 2008- present. Put another way, since you apparently can't understand plain English, Rupert Griffith and cabinet didn't say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards. "
Untrue. I corrected it: You are correct in that the cabinet note does not say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards." It states that a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14. Unfortunately, TTFA's accountants can't produce these until 2008/9/10/11/12 are completed. So after a satisfactory explanation from Tim-Kee and the accountants, funds were released on the understanding that the accounts would be produced in some form.
So you see
a) it was not Sancho that ordered the accounts, however, quite rightly, he insisted that the conditions be met
b) he allowed funds to be dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts
"I was privy to the communications between Anthony Creed, Griffith and the FA... I didn't see anything that placed a condition on the disbursement of funds."
Not sure what he was reading because as I already stated, a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14.
"So the coaches haven't been paid arrears (dating back to Jan-Feb) from other TTFA funds... they were paid from the $9 million MoS appropriation?"
Asked and answered: You would have to check with your source about how/who TTFA pay. I can only advise on allocations from the cabinet note, some of which was specifically to pay arrears for technical staff and players, staff stipends from 2012/13, and staff salaries from WC14 campaign. The period you are referring to is the final tranche of technical staff remuneration, which will be paid once requested.
"My 'understanding' is not at issue here, I stand by what I said. The documents I saw made no reference to conditions being placed on the release of funds to pay the salaries and arrears."
So despite me explaining the conditions on the cabinet note, our boy still insists that he knows different. So, why should I waste my time on idiots like that? The bottom line is that anything Sancho or I say, Bakes will pick apart or criticize. Fair enough if you want to argue with opinions, but what is the point of me writing the truth if I then have to defend myself time after time.
Now laughing boy will come back and have a jab because I don't know the exact figure, yet he doesn't know the actual figure on the cabinet note to start with, yet apparently he's seen it. (Let's see how long it takes him to get the true figure...and, hey, get your guy to check the conditions while he's there)
Where is SH money?
-
Well, you saw the wrong documents. And you're conveniently finding time to ask questions instead of admitting that were duped by your friends.
Okay... I was "duped by my friends."
Now answer the question hypocrite: How much of the $9 million appropriation has been spent and how much remains? Should be simple enough.
So ask your friend. Should be easy enough. Deduct what they have received from what was promised.
Why not just tell us FS?
I can't tell you exactly at this point as the amount has decreased again today when a new request came in. But once you take into account the money set aside for the Miami camp and Gold Cup all that's left is enough to cover Harts salary and the other technical staff. Then, every item on the note would have been met.
But I'm getting tired of correcting untruths and then having to justify everything I write. Never before has this forum received direct information from the Ministry, yet when I try to correct the untruths being told I get dragged into these petty arguments.
"How Sancho could say "he lie" when Sancho self hold up the payments wanting to see audits?" " The $9 million dollars was promised by Griffith, then Sancho came in and put conditions on the payments. Sancho didn't say the TTFA get the money, he said almost 90% of it was spent. What he didn't say is who spend it... or that this bullshit WPL 'tournament" that he forced on the TTFA costs $1.7 million dollars, which came out of the $9 nillion already promised to the FA."
These statements are untrue. I corrected them: Sancho has not put in any additional conditions that were not in the original cabinet vote. In fact, he's let funding go through even though those conditions still haven't been met. He's trying to work with the TTFA through their problems. No money from TTFA's note will be deducted for WPL or any other project other that stipulated on the note. To do this would require a return to cabinet for their approval.
"The cabinet note did not condition release of the funds on the TTFA providing audits from 2008- present. Put another way, since you apparently can't understand plain English, Rupert Griffith and cabinet didn't say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards. "
Untrue. I corrected it: You are correct in that the cabinet note does not say "the only way the TTFA will get any of the $9 million authorized, is if they first present audited financial statements from the year 2008 and onwards." It states that a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14. Unfortunately, TTFA's accountants can't produce these until 2008/9/10/11/12 are completed. So after a satisfactory explanation from Tim-Kee and the accountants, funds were released on the understanding that the accounts would be produced in some form.
So you see
a) it was not Sancho that ordered the accounts, however, quite rightly, he insisted that the conditions be met
b) he allowed funds to be dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts
"I was privy to the communications between Anthony Creed, Griffith and the FA... I didn't see anything that placed a condition on the disbursement of funds."
Not sure what he was reading because as I already stated, a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14.
"So the coaches haven't been paid arrears (dating back to Jan-Feb) from other TTFA funds... they were paid from the $9 million MoS appropriation?"
Asked and answered: You would have to check with your source about how/who TTFA pay. I can only advise on allocations from the cabinet note, some of which was specifically to pay arrears for technical staff and players, staff stipends from 2012/13, and staff salaries from WC14 campaign. The period you are referring to is the final tranche of technical staff remuneration, which will be paid once requested.
"My 'understanding' is not at issue here, I stand by what I said. The documents I saw made no reference to conditions being placed on the release of funds to pay the salaries and arrears."
So despite me explaining the conditions on the cabinet note, our boy still insists that he knows different. So, why should I waste my time on idiots like that? The bottom line is that anything Sancho or I say, Bakes will pick apart or criticize. Fair enough if you want to argue with opinions, but what is the point of me writing the truth if I then have to defend myself time after time.
Now laughing boy will come back and have a jab because I don't know the exact figure, yet he doesn't know the actual figure on the cabinet note to start with, yet apparently he's seen it. (Let's see how long it takes him to get the true figure...and, hey, get your guy to check the conditions while he's there)
Where is SH money?
"The period you are referring to is the final tranche of technical staff remuneration, which will be paid once requested."
-
...
Where is SH money?
"The period you are referring to is the final tranche of technical staff remuneration, which will be paid once requested."
FREE STEPHEN HART OF THE BUREAUCRACY!
-
FS lyin lmao! Kamla and dem decide to leave TTFA in the lurch during the CFU tornament because Kee is a PNM man. Then K&Co. sweep in and save the day paying the players and making promises. Now all of a sudden is Kee playing politics and allegedly lying. Kee eh getting ah pass from me buh he eh de ony one moving funny here. Sancho and FS by extension is ah setta snake!
-
...
Where is SH money?
"The period you are referring to is the final tranche of technical staff remuneration, which will be paid once requested."
FREE STEPHEN HART OF THE BUREAUCRACY!
:beermug: :beermug: :beermug:
-
FS lyin lmao! Kamla and dem decide to leave TTFA in the lurch during the CFU tornament because Kee is a PNM man. Then K&Co. sweep in and save the day paying the players and making promises. Now all of a sudden is Kee playing politics and allegedly lying. Kee eh getting ah pass from me buh he eh de ony one moving funny here. Sancho and FS by extension is ah setta snake!
This fella is a f**king liar. I coming with the proof just now.... just got to the hotel here in Tobago and getting settled.
-
bakes dey not lying .........dey being economic with truth............there is difference ;D
-
Whole day I traveling so only now really seeing all the commesse from last night after my last post. Ah bet he feel nice with heself after he post that. I had to wait to get access to mih emails to dig up the note. I can't reveal too much because it's supposed to be confidential, and knowing how devious and vindictive these f**kers are, they could use my disclosure to say the FA in breach of the terms of the agreement. But they f**king lying and trying to shit on the FA while pissing everybody head and calling it rain.
From the MoS, November 25, 2014:
Note S(14)33
(a) $9, 964, 368.00 as a provision of financial assistance to the TTFA to facilitate payment of expenses related to the Senior MNT
Arrears of Match fees and bonuses for technical staff and players $X, XXX,XXX.00
Arrears of staff stipends (October and November 2012 and January to July 2013 $XXX, XXX.00
Arrears of salaries for five (5) members of Staff (April to July 2012 during the World Cup 2014 Qualifying Campaign $XXX,000.00
Projected technical staff remuneration (November 2014 to June 2015) $X,XXX,000.00
Participation in the “2015 Caribbean Cup Finals Tournament and training camps” $X,XXX,XXX.00
(b) That the MoS in consultation with the Min. of Finance and the Economy, identify funds in the said sum of $9,964,368.00 from its budgetary allocation to give effect to (a) above;
(c) That the TTFA submit to the MoS certified financial statements in respect of disbursements made to the Association by the State for the financial years 2013 and 2014.
Pay particular note to the bolded: Subsection (c) is a standalone subsection and neither (a) nor (b) is conditioned on (c). In other words, there is agreement in Cabinet to (a), (b) and (c)... but at no point does Cabinet say that (a) or (b) will happen only if (c) is done. The FA agrees to provide an accounting of money spent during 203-2014.
Sancho is the one who of his own accord decide to tie (c) to (a) and (b). He's the one holding up the payment as I've said all along. Harrision is a snake. He claim I was either lying or misled... I said I was misled just to get him to state how much money has been spent from the $10 million... and he still wouldn't say because they f**king lying.
Pay close attention to the item in blue... it's nonsensical. There is no 2015 Caribbean Cup, the Caribbean Cup was held last year, and it's contested every two years. The money was supposed to be for the 2015 Gold Cup. Rather than admit the MoS f**k up, Sancho rather play the ass in the press, and send his f**king mutt of a lapdog, Harrison here to spout shit about the TTFA already spending 90% of the money. How could they spend money on the "2015 Caribbean Cup"? Idiots. Nearly $3.5 million tied up in bullshit. Meanwhile the TTFA has gone ahead and paid the salaries from January thru now, taking money away from other things that was planned... while Sancho and his Muppet in chief here yapping about who playing politics.
-
Shame shame shame.........or maybe not......
-
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/895/845/2f9.jpg)
-
Whole day I traveling so only now really seeing all the commesse from last night after my last post. Ah bet he feel nice with heself after he post that. I had to wait to get access to mih emails to dig up the note. I can't reveal too much because it's supposed to be confidential, and knowing how devious and vindictive these f**kers are, they could use my disclosure to say the FA in breach of the terms of the agreement. But they f**king lying and trying to shit on the FA while pissing everybody head and calling it rain.
From the MoS, November 25, 2014:
Note S(14)33
(a) $9, 964, 368.00 as a provision of financial assistance to the TTFA to facilitate payment of expenses related to the Senior MNT
Arrears of Match fees and bonuses for technical staff and players $X, XXX,XXX.00
Arrears of staff stipends (October and November 2012 and January to July 2013 $XXX, XXX.00
Arrears of salaries for five (5) members of Staff (April to July 2012 during the World Cup 2014 Qualifying Campaign $XXX,000.00
Projected technical staff remuneration (November 2014 to June 2015) $X,XXX,000.00
Participation in the “2015 Caribbean Cup Finals Tournament and training camps” $X,XXX,XXX.00
(b) That the MoS in consultation with the Min. of Finance and the Economy, identify funds in the said sum of $9,964,368.00 from its budgetary allocation to give effect to (a) above;
(c) That the TTFA submit to the MoS certified financial statements in respect of disbursements made to the Association by the State for the financial years 2013 and 2014.
Pay particular note to the bolded: Subsection (c) is a standalone subsection and neither (a) nor (b) is conditioned on (c). In other words, there is agreement in Cabinet to (a), (b) and (c)... but at no point does Cabinet say that (a) or (b) will happen only if (c) is done. The FA agrees to provide an accounting of money spent during 203-2014.
Sancho is the one who of his own accord decide to tie (c) to (a) and (b). He's the one holding up the payment as I've said all along. Harrision is a snake. He claim I was either lying or misled... I said I was misled just to get him to state how much money has been spent from the $10 million... and he still wouldn't say because they f**king lying.
Pay close attention to the item in blue... it's nonsensical. There is no 2015 Caribbean Cup, the Caribbean Cup was held last year, and it's contested every two years. The money was supposed to be for the 2015 Gold Cup. Rather than admit the MoS f**k up, Sancho rather play the ass in the press, and send his f**king mutt of a lapdog, Harrison here to spout shit about the TTFA already spending 90% of the money. How could they spend money on the "2015 Caribbean Cup"? Idiots. Nearly $3.5 million tied up in bullshit. Meanwhile the TTFA has gone ahead and paid the salaries from January thru now, taking money away from other things that was planned... while Sancho and his Muppet in chief here yapping about who playing politics.
OK so you want to call names big man? You're so fast to kiss up your boyfriends ass you don't stop to consider shit. Any dickhead would realize that the Caribbean Cup should read as Gold Cup. Not sure who made that mistake but it's fairly easy to figure out what it's supposed to refer to. That specified funding is allocated for Gold Cup participation and preparation only. A cabinet note can't be used for anything other than the specified reason unless you take it back to cabinet. That's why the WPL could never be funded by this note as you claimed. For a lawyer, you're pretty dumb about cabinet notes. So, when you calculate the amount of funds still available, you don't include that sum because, you've guessed it, it's allocated.
-
Question for Bakes ... and I sense he's inevitably considered this ... but I think it's a useful question in the interest of stakeholders (inclusive of all of us here):
While we appreciate the value of transparency, is there in any respect a viable issue with you having access to this material or presenting this material into the public domain? In simpler terms, what distinguishes you from Julian Assange?
I'm raising this objectively ...
-
OK so you want to call names big man? You're so fast to kiss up your boyfriends ass you don't stop to consider shit. Any dickhead would realize that the Caribbean Cup should read as Gold Cup. Not sure who made that mistake but it's fairly easy to figure out what it's supposed to refer to. That specified funding is allocated for Gold Cup participation and preparation only. A cabinet note can't be used for anything other than the specified reason unless you take it back to cabinet. That's why the WPL could never be funded by this note as you claimed. For a lawyer, you're pretty dumb about cabinet notes. So, when you calculate the amount of funds still available, you don't include that sum because, you've guessed it, it's allocated.
I might be dumb but I'm still infinitely smarter than you two bright sparks... you didn't say the funds were "allocated" you said the TTFA has spent 90% of their allocation. So, bright man Kevin... how could they spend money on something that doesn't exist?
And... to show just how "dumb" I am, especially for a supposed lawyer. If the money could only be used for the specified reason and none other... I guess that means the money must be used for participation in the "2015 Caribbean Cup" or else it goes back to Cabinet, right? You either really dotish, or yuh putting on a good act. The Permanent Secretary knows all too well how to work the system, and all along I've been saying go ask Anthony Creed about his use of the note funding. But nah, I's de dumb one.
You need to come better than that Kevin Harrison... one of us drafts and interprets contracts on a daily basis. The other one tries to hoodwink minors into signing professional football contracts without the advice of their parents, and don't know how to find a fax number to FIFA on the internet. Tell me again how "dumb" I am.
Question for Bakes ... and I sense he's inevitably considered this ... but I think it's a useful question in the interest of stakeholders (inclusive of all of us here):
While we appreciate the value of transparency, is there in any respect a viable issue with you having access to this material or presenting this material into the public domain? In simpler terms, what distinguishes you from Julian Assange?
I'm raising this objectively ...
Yes I have considered it. As for what distinguishes me from Assange, I think that's pretty evident. If yuh still not clear, consider the manner in which the information at hand has been obtained, and the intent in disseminating it.
-
I understand ... I think you should bridge the gap a bit doh. Not everyone might be tracking this point. I asked because I understood.
-
OK so you want to call names big man? You're so fast to kiss up your boyfriends ass you don't stop to consider shit. Any dickhead would realize that the Caribbean Cup should read as Gold Cup. Not sure who made that mistake but it's fairly easy to figure out what it's supposed to refer to. That specified funding is allocated for Gold Cup participation and preparation only. A cabinet note can't be used for anything other than the specified reason unless you take it back to cabinet. That's why the WPL could never be funded by this note as you claimed. For a lawyer, you're pretty dumb about cabinet notes. So, when you calculate the amount of funds still available, you don't include that sum because, you've guessed it, it's allocated.
I might be dumb but I'm still infinitely smarter than you two bright sparks... you didn't say the funds were "allocated" you said the TTFA has spent 90% of their allocation. So, bright man Kevin... how could they spend money on something that doesn't exist?
And... to show just how "dumb" I am, especially for a supposed lawyer. If the money could only be used for the specified reason and none other... I guess that means the money must be used for participation in the "2015 Caribbean Cup" or else it goes back to Cabinet, right? You either really dotish, or yuh putting on a good act. The Permanent Secretary knows all too well how to work the system, and all along I've been saying go ask Anthony Creed about his use of the note funding. But nah, I's de dumb one.
You need to come better than that Kevin Harrison... one of us drafts and interprets contracts on a daily basis. The other one tries to hoodwink minors into signing professional football contracts without the advice of their parents, and don't know how to find a fax number to FIFA on the internet. Tell me again how "dumb" I am.
Question for Bakes ... and I sense he's inevitably considered this ... but I think it's a useful question in the interest of stakeholders (inclusive of all of us here):
While we appreciate the value of transparency, is there in any respect a viable issue with you having access to this material or presenting this material into the public domain? In simpler terms, what distinguishes you from Julian Assange?
I'm raising this objectively ...
Yes I have considered it. As for what distinguishes me from Assange, I think that's pretty evident. If yuh still not clear, consider the manner in which the information at hand has been obtained, and the intent in disseminating it.
LOL Of course you would say that, Anyway, you will soon discover that you have wasted your time trying to mislead everybody. The truth is out there. This is no story, no scandal. Anyway, I am kinda busy at the moment tracking down real crimes, so take a chill pill and enjoy Tobago.
-
I understand ... I think you should bridge the gap a bit doh. Not everyone might be tracking this point. I asked because I understood.
Trust that I haven't divulged anything recklessly. Despite what some might think I have no agenda, other than to see TnT football get back on track. There is more that I could divulge but I have to respect the preferred process for getting things done, and respect the spirit in which information is being shared with me. That being said, it's shocking at times how people could lie and spin things to fit their narrative. Brent Sancho knows well what he's doing with this push for "accountability," but his act starting to wear thin on the public... you can't keep missing with national team like this and not experience some kind of blowback from the most committed stakeholders, the public.
-
let me find out this cabinet note is just a post-it on somebody fridge. steups.
-
I understand ... I think you should bridge the gap a bit doh. Not everyone might be tracking this point. I asked because I understood.
Trust that I haven't divulged anything recklessly. Despite what some might think I have no agenda, other than to see TnT football get back on track. There is more that I could divulge but I have to respect the preferred process for getting things done, and respect the spirit in which information is being shared with me. That being said, it's shocking at times how people could lie and spin things to fit their narrative. Brent Sancho knows well what he's doing with this push for "accountability," but his act starting to wear thin on the public... you can't keep missing with national team like this and not experience some kind of blowback from the most committed stakeholders, the public.
This was along the lines I hoped you would engage. :thumbsup:
Could you comment on why your source(s) (1) have shared the material with you (2) are less prominent in making the case that you have made/are making, and (3) on actual or perceived breach of confidentiality or fiduciary duties on the part of the source(s)?
-
I understand ... I think you should bridge the gap a bit doh. Not everyone might be tracking this point. I asked because I understood.
Trust that I haven't divulged anything recklessly. Despite what some might think I have no agenda, other than to see TnT football get back on track. There is more that I could divulge but I have to respect the preferred process for getting things done, and respect the spirit in which information is being shared with me. That being said, it's shocking at times how people could lie and spin things to fit their narrative. Brent Sancho knows well what he's doing with this push for "accountability," but his act starting to wear thin on the public... you can't keep missing with national team like this and not experience some kind of blowback from the most committed stakeholders, the public.
This was along the lines I hoped you would engage. :thumbsup:
Could you comment on why your source(s) (1) have shared the material with you (2) are less prominent in making the case that you have made/are making, and (3) on actual or perceived breach of confidentiality or fiduciary duties on the part of the source(s)?
Some valid questions seeker, let's see what Nigel has for us?
-
FS is that info Bakes put up accurate to your knowledge? I ask because after reading it, I can't see where the release of funds is contingent upon item (c) being fulfilled. However in response to bakes you said "It states that a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14." So now if what Bakes has produced is legitimate, then what is all dat bullshit about Sancho allowing funds to be "dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts?" Oh and if you say money can only be spent on what it was allocated for and any deviation would require taking it back to cabinet, then typo or not the cabinet note makes no mention of "Gold Cup" so how then can the TTFA spend this allocation on said Gold Cup related preparation without the note having been adjusted or such use approved?
I eh trying to nit pick but if yuh go make statements I would hope they are facts and truths as you represent them to be and not ah bunch of lies because yuh feel we eh go know the difference.
-
FS is that info Bakes put up accurate to your knowledge? I ask because after reading it, I can't see where the release of funds is contingent upon item (c) being fulfilled. However in response to bakes you said "It states that a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14." So now if what Bakes has produced is legitimate, then what is all dat bullshit about Sancho allowing funds to be "dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts?" Oh and if you say money can only be spent on what it was allocated for and any deviation would require taking it back to cabinet, then typo or not the cabinet note makes no mention of "Gold Cup" so how then can the TTFA spend this allocation on said Gold Cup related preparation without the note having been adjusted or such use approved?
I eh trying to nit pick but if yuh go make statements I would hope they are facts and truths as you represent them to be and not ah bunch of lies because yuh feel we eh go know the difference.
Ask Bakes to black out any names and other info in the actual document and post it.. Anyone could write that and post it, that is not an official document from the ministry... No offence to Bakes, but we can't confirm that is an original document nor can we confirm that items from what he posted was deleted or added..
So I won't take that as gospel yet...
-
FS is that info Bakes put up accurate to your knowledge? I ask because after reading it, I can't see where the release of funds is contingent upon item (c) being fulfilled. However in response to bakes you said "It states that a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14." So now if what Bakes has produced is legitimate, then what is all dat bullshit about Sancho allowing funds to be "dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts?" Oh and if you say money can only be spent on what it was allocated for and any deviation would require taking it back to cabinet, then typo or not the cabinet note makes no mention of "Gold Cup" so how then can the TTFA spend this allocation on said Gold Cup related preparation without the note having been adjusted or such use approved?
I eh trying to nit pick but if yuh go make statements I would hope they are facts and truths as you represent them to be and not ah bunch of lies because yuh feel we eh go know the difference.
Well, since there is no Caribbean Cup 2015, it is clear that this should have referenced the Gold Cup. A lot of this Cabinet money had already been dispensed and the P.s. who is legally responsible, decided that the competition referred to could be nothing other than the Gold Cup. Referring it back to Cabinet would have delayed release of funds for the Panama game (which is part of Gold Cup preparation).
Question: If the production of accounts is not a condition of the release of funds, why is it stated there? Should we have released the $9,9 million and then asked for them, only to be told that they're not available?
-
This was along the lines I hoped you would engage. :thumbsup:
Could you comment on why your source(s) (1) have shared the material with you (2) are less prominent in making the case that you have made/are making, and (3) on actual or perceived breach of confidentiality or fiduciary duties on the part of the source(s)?
1. "Source(s)"... I have sources who function independently of each other, but who are major stakeholders in local football. Sometimes one isn't necessarily privy to the information held by the other and vice versa. With one in particular we actually started off by bumping heads a couple times, but over the years they appreciated that I could articulate the issues and (as they see it) that I always tried to be fair, so it became a trust issue. At first it was just trusting me with info and soliciting advice/feedback.
2. A lot of what they shared I asked, and advocated that it be shared with the forum, because the info we get otherwise tend to be so slanted against the FA. Sometimes the facts might be accurate, but Lasana (for instance) would put such an editorial spin on it as to downplay the veracity or importance of the information. My sources are not public figures, they see how Tim Kee and Phillips are treated in the press and online and want no part of that, besides, correcting the amount of misinformation that's out there is a full-time job in itself at times, so...
3. There has been no breach of confidentiality... I've only shared a fraction of the information I'm privy to, and I make sure they're good with whatever I share. Info that I have but what they can't share publicly then that goes only as far as me. As for any breach by sharing with me privately... none of this is "state's secret" or national security stuff... it ent that serious.
-
FS is that info Bakes put up accurate to your knowledge? I ask because after reading it, I can't see where the release of funds is contingent upon item (c) being fulfilled. However in response to bakes you said "It states that a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14." So now if what Bakes has produced is legitimate, then what is all dat bullshit about Sancho allowing funds to be "dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts?" Oh and if you say money can only be spent on what it was allocated for and any deviation would require taking it back to cabinet, then typo or not the cabinet note makes no mention of "Gold Cup" so how then can the TTFA spend this allocation on said Gold Cup related preparation without the note having been adjusted or such use approved?
I eh trying to nit pick but if yuh go make statements I would hope they are facts and truths as you represent them to be and not ah bunch of lies because yuh feel we eh go know the difference.
FS just trying to baffle allyuh with bullshit... I give him enough rope so he could hang heself with. He carry on up and down swearing how I must have never even seen the note, when I dealing with this thing long before he even became involved. This promise to pay the salaries was made by Anil about two years ago. The Ministry then reneged on the promise after the whole LifeSport debacle. Griffith made a big stink in the press about how the TTFA need to get their house in order, but is the Ministry that made the promise to help then try to back off.
Anil never conditioned funding on the prospective release of audits. Griffith never conditioned the funds on the prospective release of audits. Sancho is the one who come like a never-see, come-see and determined to flex the little bit of power he had, decide that any release of funds to pay the salaries, arrears and Gold Cup expenses would be made only AFTER the TTFA provide audits. Audits costs money, audits is not going to a MS Excel document and printing it out. One of my accountant clients routinely charges $15,000 US per audit. This is no exaggeration, I review all his contracts to make sure the scope of work etc. is clearly spelled out. But people feel like you could just snap yuh fingers and make audits happen... so the FA had find money and spend money on audits before the coaches could be paid. This is the crusade that Sancho on?
steups.
-
FS is that info Bakes put up accurate to your knowledge? I ask because after reading it, I can't see where the release of funds is contingent upon item (c) being fulfilled. However in response to bakes you said "It states that a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14." So now if what Bakes has produced is legitimate, then what is all dat bullshit about Sancho allowing funds to be "dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts?" Oh and if you say money can only be spent on what it was allocated for and any deviation would require taking it back to cabinet, then typo or not the cabinet note makes no mention of "Gold Cup" so how then can the TTFA spend this allocation on said Gold Cup related preparation without the note having been adjusted or such use approved?
I eh trying to nit pick but if yuh go make statements I would hope they are facts and truths as you represent them to be and not ah bunch of lies because yuh feel we eh go know the difference.
FS just trying to baffle allyuh with bullshit... I give him enough rope so he could hang heself with. He carry on up and down swearing how I must have never even seen the note, when I dealing with this thing long before he even became involved. This promise to pay the salaries was made by Anil about two years ago. The Ministry then reneged on the promise after the whole LifeSport debacle. Griffith made a big stink in the press about how the TTFA need to get their house in order, but is the Ministry that made the promise to help then try to back off.
Anil never conditioned funding on the prospective release of audits. Griffith never conditioned the funds on the prospective release of audits. Sancho is the one who come like a never-see, come-see and determined to flex the little bit of power he had, decide that any release of funds to pay the salaries, arrears and Gold Cup expenses would be made only AFTER the TTFA provide audits. Audits costs money, audits is not going to a MS Excel document and printing it out. One of my accountant clients routinely charges $15,000 US per audit. This is no exaggeration, I review all his contracts to make sure the scope of work etc. is clearly spelled out. But people feel like you could just snap yuh fingers and make audits happen... so the FA had find money and spend money on audits before the coaches could be paid. This is the crusade that Sancho on?
steups.
are you against audits because of the money that needs to be spent or the practice itself when applying to the TTFA?
For me it is a part of transparency and accountability... The stipulation should be that in the event of mandatory audits requested by the government/mos, part of the allocation from the MOS should cover this in order to maintain transparency and accountability...without depleting funds that would be better served on the national football program
That is a compromise.
-
FS is that info Bakes put up accurate to your knowledge? I ask because after reading it, I can't see where the release of funds is contingent upon item (c) being fulfilled. However in response to bakes you said "It states that a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14." So now if what Bakes has produced is legitimate, then what is all dat bullshit about Sancho allowing funds to be "dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts?" Oh and if you say money can only be spent on what it was allocated for and any deviation would require taking it back to cabinet, then typo or not the cabinet note makes no mention of "Gold Cup" so how then can the TTFA spend this allocation on said Gold Cup related preparation without the note having been adjusted or such use approved?
I eh trying to nit pick but if yuh go make statements I would hope they are facts and truths as you represent them to be and not ah bunch of lies because yuh feel we eh go know the difference.
FS just trying to baffle allyuh with bullshit... I give him enough rope so he could hang heself with. He carry on up and down swearing how I must have never even seen the note, when I dealing with this thing long before he even became involved. This promise to pay the salaries was made by Anil about two years ago. The Ministry then reneged on the promise after the whole LifeSport debacle. Griffith made a big stink in the press about how the TTFA need to get their house in order, but is the Ministry that made the promise to help then try to back off.
Anil never conditioned funding on the prospective release of audits. Griffith never conditioned the funds on the prospective release of audits. Sancho is the one who come like a never-see, come-see and determined to flex the little bit of power he had, decide that any release of funds to pay the salaries, arrears and Gold Cup expenses would be made only AFTER the TTFA provide audits. Audits costs money, audits is not going to a MS Excel document and printing it out. One of my accountant clients routinely charges $15,000 US per audit. This is no exaggeration, I review all his contracts to make sure the scope of work etc. is clearly spelled out. But people feel like you could just snap yuh fingers and make audits happen... so the FA had find money and spend money on audits before the coaches could be paid. This is the crusade that Sancho on?
steups.
And there in the space of two posts, the contradiction is revealed:
Sometimes the facts might be accurate, but Lasana (for instance) would put such an editorial spin on it as to downplay the veracity or importance of the information. My sources are not public figures, they see how Tim Kee and Phillips are treated in the press and online and want no part of that, besides, correcting the amount of misinformation that's out there is a full-time job in itself at times, so...
FS just trying to baffle allyuh with bullshit Sancho is the one who come like a never-see, come-see and determined to flex the little bit of power he had
So, let me understand this.
Dear old Tim-Kee, (who was Vice President for 10 years to the world's most notorious football corrupter) must never be criticised by the press. After all, he says he's completely innocent, right? And these damned audits are fiendishly expensive so let's not bother eh? Just give them the cash.
Meanwhile, Sancho and FS can be abused on websites, their integrity can be challenged, and why not get real personal about their family too?
You talk about Lasana putting a spin on things? Talk about hypocrisy. Even when you yourself have proved that there is a condition to release funds, you spin and spin. Then you claim Sancho magically altered a 3 month old cabinet note to include a condition to satisfy his own ambitions. Are you listening to yourself? And then comes the best comment ever: Anil never conditioned funding on the prospective release of audits. :rotfl: :rotfl: The man who didn't keep track of lifesport is your shining example of accountability and transparency? Hmmm, let me see...Tim-Kee & Anil vs Sancho. Really?
Two very simple questions: For what reason was the condition about accounts placed on the note? When would any sane person expect that condition to be met?
-
And there in the space of two posts, the contradiction is revealed:
Sometimes the facts might be accurate, but Lasana (for instance) would put such an editorial spin on it as to downplay the veracity or importance of the information. My sources are not public figures, they see how Tim Kee and Phillips are treated in the press and online and want no part of that, besides, correcting the amount of misinformation that's out there is a full-time job in itself at times, so...
FS just trying to baffle allyuh with bullshit Sancho is the one who come like a never-see, come-see and determined to flex the little bit of power he had
So, let me understand this.
Dear old Tim-Kee, (who was Vice President for 10 years to the world's most notorious football corrupter) must never be criticised by the press. After all, he says he's completely innocent, right? And these damned audits are fiendishly expensive so let's not bother eh? Just give them the cash.
Meanwhile, Sancho and FS can be abused on websites, their integrity can be challenged, and why not get real personal about their family too?
Where did I say Tim Kee can't be criticized? Can you read... I mean seriously? Like, read and understand the written word?
You talk about Lasana putting a spin on things? Talk about hypocrisy. Even when you yourself have proved that there is a condition to release funds, you spin and spin.
Quite the opposite. Unless you dispute the accuracy of what it is I posted, then I have proved that there is no "condition." If you find the language which makes the disbursement of funds conditional in any way, then feel free to post it. If not, hush English c**t.
Then you claim Sancho magically altered a 3 month old cabinet note to include a condition to satisfy his own ambitions. Are you listening to yourself?
Where did I state anything like this? Go find it... we have time.
And then comes the best comment ever: Anil never conditioned funding on the prospective release of audits. :rotfl: :rotfl: The man who didn't keep track of lifesport is your shining example of accountability and transparency? Hmmm, let me see...Tim-Kee & Anil vs Sancho. Really?
Did I hold him up as an example of anything? Let alone a shining example? I know I does joke about man reading comprehension, but you seriously dotish dred. Anil is the one who made the promise to pay the coaching salaries and player stipend. He never placed a condition on the payment. Rupert Griffith agreed to make the payments, and signed off on it. He too, never placed any condition on the payments... specifically none that the TTFA prospectively release audits. Yuh understand de context now... or yuh still need help? Doh answer, it is rhetorical.
Two very simple questions: For what reason was the condition about accounts placed on the note? When would any sane person expect that condition to be met?
Find the language as it exists in the Cabinet note (not in your head) that meets anyone of these definitions. Assuming you could read for understanding of course:
Full Definition of CONDITION
1
a : a premise upon which the fulfillment of an agreement depends : stipulation
b obsolete : covenant
c : a provision making the effect of a legal instrument contingent upon an uncertain event; also : the event itself
2
: something essential to the appearance or occurrence of something else : prerequisite: as
a : an environmental requirement <available oxygen is an essential condition for animal life>
b : the subordinate clause of a conditional sentence
3
a : a restricting or modifying factor : qualification
b : an unsatisfactory academic grade that may be raised by doing additional work
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condition
-
And there in the space of two posts, the contradiction is revealed:
Sometimes the facts might be accurate, but Lasana (for instance) would put such an editorial spin on it as to downplay the veracity or importance of the information. My sources are not public figures, they see how Tim Kee and Phillips are treated in the press and online and want no part of that, besides, correcting the amount of misinformation that's out there is a full-time job in itself at times, so...
FS just trying to baffle allyuh with bullshit Sancho is the one who come like a never-see, come-see and determined to flex the little bit of power he had
So, let me understand this.
Dear old Tim-Kee, (who was Vice President for 10 years to the world's most notorious football corrupter) must never be criticised by the press. After all, he says he's completely innocent, right? And these damned audits are fiendishly expensive so let's not bother eh? Just give them the cash.
Meanwhile, Sancho and FS can be abused on websites, their integrity can be challenged, and why not get real personal about their family too?
Where did I say Tim Kee can't be criticized? Can you read... I mean seriously? Like, read and understand the written word?
You talk about Lasana putting a spin on things? Talk about hypocrisy. Even when you yourself have proved that there is a condition to release funds, you spin and spin.
Quite the opposite. Unless you dispute the accuracy of what it is I posted, then I have proved that there is no "condition." If you find the language which makes the disbursement of funds conditional in any way, then feel free to post it. If not, hush English c**t.
Then you claim Sancho magically altered a 3 month old cabinet note to include a condition to satisfy his own ambitions. Are you listening to yourself?
Where did I state anything like this? Go find it... we have time.
And then comes the best comment ever: Anil never conditioned funding on the prospective release of audits. :rotfl: :rotfl: The man who didn't keep track of lifesport is your shining example of accountability and transparency? Hmmm, let me see...Tim-Kee & Anil vs Sancho. Really?
Did I hold him up as an example of anything? Let alone a shining example? I know I does joke about man reading comprehension, but you seriously dotish dred. Anil is the one who made the promise to pay the coaching salaries and player stipend. He never placed a condition on the payment. Rupert Griffith agreed to make the payments, and signed off on it. He too, never placed any condition on the payments... specifically none that the TTFA prospectively release audits. Yuh understand de context now... or yuh still need help? Doh answer, it is rhetorical.
Two very simple questions: For what reason was the condition about accounts placed on the note? When would any sane person expect that condition to be met?
Find the language as it exists in the Cabinet note (not in your head) that meets anyone of these definitions. Assuming you could read for understanding of course:
Full Definition of CONDITION
1
a : a premise upon which the fulfillment of an agreement depends : stipulation
b obsolete : covenant
c : a provision making the effect of a legal instrument contingent upon an uncertain event; also : the event itself
2
: something essential to the appearance or occurrence of something else : prerequisite: as
a : an environmental requirement <available oxygen is an essential condition for animal life>
b : the subordinate clause of a conditional sentence
3
a : a restricting or modifying factor : qualification
b : an unsatisfactory academic grade that may be raised by doing additional work
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condition
Asked an answered in your own post.
Where did I state anything like this? Go find it... we have time.
Anil is the one who made the promise to pay the coaching salaries and player stipend. He never placed a condition on the payment. Rupert Griffith agreed to make the payments, and signed off on it. He too, never placed any condition on the payments...
Sancho took office in February (that's three months after the cabinet note). The only disbursements at that point were the arrears wracked up by Tim-Kee since 2012. I really can't believe that you're trying to convince people that a condition would be put on a cabinet note, yet would only be acted upon after the money is spent. Are you mad?
-
From the MoS, November 25, 2014:
Note S(14)33
(a) $9, 964, 368.00 as a provision of financial assistance to the TTFA to facilitate payment of expenses related to the Senior MNT
Arrears of Match fees and bonuses for technical staff and players $X, XXX,XXX.00
Arrears of staff stipends (October and November 2012 and January to July 2013 $XXX, XXX.00
Arrears of salaries for five (5) members of Staff (April to July 2012 during the World Cup 2014 Qualifying Campaign $XXX,000.00
Projected technical staff remuneration (November 2014 to June 2015) $X,XXX,000.00
Participation in the “2015 Caribbean Cup Finals Tournament and training camps” $X,XXX,XXX.00
(b) That the MoS in consultation with the Min. of Finance and the Economy, identify funds in the said sum of $9,964,368.00 from its budgetary allocation to give effect to (a) above;
(c) That the TTFA submit to the MoS certified financial statements in respect of disbursements made to the Association by the State for the financial years 2013 and 2014.
1. Aside from the dollar amounts, is this "document" (used loosely) quoted above ... redacted in any other regard with respect to the original Note S(14)33?
2. If the answer to the above is affirmative, please state what those redactions concern or contemplate.
-
1. Aside from the dollar amounts, is this "document" (used loosely) quoted above ... redacted in any other regard with respect to the original Note S(14)33?
Nope.
Sancho's stable boy should be able to confirm, since he also claims to have seen it.
-
1. Aside from the dollar amounts, is this "document" (used loosely) quoted above ... redacted in any other regard with respect to the original Note S(14)33?
Nope.
Sancho's stable boy should be able to confirm, since he also claims to have seen it.
Looks about right to me.
-
And there in the space of two posts, the contradiction is revealed:
Sometimes the facts might be accurate, but Lasana (for instance) would put such an editorial spin on it as to downplay the veracity or importance of the information. My sources are not public figures, they see how Tim Kee and Phillips are treated in the press and online and want no part of that, besides, correcting the amount of misinformation that's out there is a full-time job in itself at times, so...
FS just trying to baffle allyuh with bullshit Sancho is the one who come like a never-see, come-see and determined to flex the little bit of power he had
So, let me understand this.
Dear old Tim-Kee, (who was Vice President for 10 years to the world's most notorious football corrupter) must never be criticised by the press. After all, he says he's completely innocent, right? And these damned audits are fiendishly expensive so let's not bother eh? Just give them the cash.
Meanwhile, Sancho and FS can be abused on websites, their integrity can be challenged, and why not get real personal about their family too?
Where did I say Tim Kee can't be criticized? Can you read... I mean seriously? Like, read and understand the written word?
You talk about Lasana putting a spin on things? Talk about hypocrisy. Even when you yourself have proved that there is a condition to release funds, you spin and spin.
Quite the opposite. Unless you dispute the accuracy of what it is I posted, then I have proved that there is no "condition." If you find the language which makes the disbursement of funds conditional in any way, then feel free to post it. If not, hush English c**t.
Then you claim Sancho magically altered a 3 month old cabinet note to include a condition to satisfy his own ambitions. Are you listening to yourself?
Where did I state anything like this? Go find it... we have time.
And then comes the best comment ever: Anil never conditioned funding on the prospective release of audits. :rotfl: :rotfl: The man who didn't keep track of lifesport is your shining example of accountability and transparency? Hmmm, let me see...Tim-Kee & Anil vs Sancho. Really?
Did I hold him up as an example of anything? Let alone a shining example? I know I does joke about man reading comprehension, but you seriously dotish dred. Anil is the one who made the promise to pay the coaching salaries and player stipend. He never placed a condition on the payment. Rupert Griffith agreed to make the payments, and signed off on it. He too, never placed any condition on the payments... specifically none that the TTFA prospectively release audits. Yuh understand de context now... or yuh still need help? Doh answer, it is rhetorical.
Two very simple questions: For what reason was the condition about accounts placed on the note? When would any sane person expect that condition to be met?
Find the language as it exists in the Cabinet note (not in your head) that meets anyone of these definitions. Assuming you could read for understanding of course:
Full Definition of CONDITION
1
a : a premise upon which the fulfillment of an agreement depends : stipulation
b obsolete : covenant
c : a provision making the effect of a legal instrument contingent upon an uncertain event; also : the event itself
2
: something essential to the appearance or occurrence of something else : prerequisite: as
a : an environmental requirement <available oxygen is an essential condition for animal life>
b : the subordinate clause of a conditional sentence
3
a : a restricting or modifying factor : qualification
b : an unsatisfactory academic grade that may be raised by doing additional work
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condition
FS is that info Bakes put up accurate to your knowledge? I ask because after reading it, I can't see where the release of funds is contingent upon item (c) being fulfilled. However in response to bakes you said "It states that a condition of the funding is that TTFA produce audited accounts for 2013-14." So now if what Bakes has produced is legitimate, then what is all dat bullshit about Sancho allowing funds to be "dispersed on the basis of a promise of the future production of the accounts?" Oh and if you say money can only be spent on what it was allocated for and any deviation would require taking it back to cabinet, then typo or not the cabinet note makes no mention of "Gold Cup" so how then can the TTFA spend this allocation on said Gold Cup related preparation without the note having been adjusted or such use approved?
I eh trying to nit pick but if yuh go make statements I would hope they are facts and truths as you represent them to be and not ah bunch of lies because yuh feel we eh go know the difference.
FS just trying to baffle allyuh with bullshit... I give him enough rope so he could hang heself with. He carry on up and down swearing how I must have never even seen the note, when I dealing with this thing long before he even became involved. This promise to pay the salaries was made by Anil about two years ago. The Ministry then reneged on the promise after the whole LifeSport debacle. Griffith made a big stink in the press about how the TTFA need to get their house in order, but is the Ministry that made the promise to help then try to back off.
Anil never conditioned funding on the prospective release of audits. Griffith never conditioned the funds on the prospective release of audits. Sancho is the one who come like a never-see, come-see and determined to flex the little bit of power he had, decide that any release of funds to pay the salaries, arrears and Gold Cup expenses would be made only AFTER the TTFA provide audits. Audits costs money, audits is not going to a MS Excel document and printing it out. One of my accountant clients routinely charges $15,000 US per audit. This is no exaggeration, I review all his contracts to make sure the scope of work etc. is clearly spelled out. But people feel like you could just snap yuh fingers and make audits happen... so the FA had find money and spend money on audits before the coaches could be paid. This is the crusade that Sancho on?
steups.
And there in the space of two posts, the contradiction is revealed:
Sometimes the facts might be accurate, but Lasana (for instance) would put such an editorial spin on it as to downplay the veracity or importance of the information. My sources are not public figures, they see how Tim Kee and Phillips are treated in the press and online and want no part of that, besides, correcting the amount of misinformation that's out there is a full-time job in itself at times, so...
FS just trying to baffle allyuh with bullshit Sancho is the one who come like a never-see, come-see and determined to flex the little bit of power he had
So, let me understand this.
Dear old Tim-Kee, (who was Vice President for 10 years to the world's most notorious football corrupter) must never be criticised by the press. After all, he says he's completely innocent, right? And these damned audits are fiendishly expensive so let's not bother eh? Just give them the cash.
Meanwhile, Sancho and FS can be abused on websites, their integrity can be challenged, and why not get real personal about their family too?
You talk about Lasana putting a spin on things? Talk about hypocrisy. Even when you yourself have proved that there is a condition to release funds, you spin and spin. Then you claim Sancho magically altered a 3 month old cabinet note to include a condition to satisfy his own ambitions. Are you listening to yourself? And then comes the best comment ever: Anil never conditioned funding on the prospective release of audits. :rotfl: :rotfl: The man who didn't keep track of lifesport is your shining example of accountability and transparency? Hmmm, let me see...Tim-Kee & Anil vs Sancho. Really?
Two very simple questions: For what reason was the condition about accounts placed on the note? When would any sane person expect that condition to be met?
Bakes you never did answer these questions. So, from a legal point of view, please give us your answers.
And a third question: If the Ministry asked for the condition to be met after all of the funds were dispersed and TTFA decided not to comply, what would be the repercussions? How would Sancho answer if the cabinet inquired as to why he dispersed all of the funds without enforcing this condition?
-
Of course I answered the questions, I said there was no "condition". You keep pointing to an illusion and expect to get a rational answer to your strawman question. There was a stipulation to the funding that the TTFA would also provide audited accounts for 2013-14. Chalk it up to misstated intent, poor drafting or anything else your imagination might conjure, but as written there is no "condition" to the funding. Even if one were to generously interpret it as such, there is nothing from the language present in the four corners of the agreement that says audits must be presented before funds are disbursed. I understand that is how Minister B.S. interpreted it to suit his own agenda, but that interpretation is not supported by the language in the cabinet note.
-
Of course I answered the questions, I said there was no "condition". You keep pointing to an illusion and expect to get a rational answer to your strawman question. There was a stipulation to the funding that the TTFA would also provide audited accounts for 2013-14. Chalk it up to misstated intent, poor drafting or anything else your imagination might conjure, but as written there is no "condition" to the funding. Even if one were to generously interpret it as such, there is nothing from the language present in the four corners of the agreement that says audits must be presented before funds are disbursed. I understand that is how Minister B.S. interpreted it to suit his own agenda, but that interpretation is not supported by the language in the cabinet note.
OK, so you're as usual, playing with words. The questions I asked that you still haven't answered are: Why was this"stipulation" placed on the Cabinet note and when would any sane person expect this "stipulation" to be met?
To save you the time on google: stipulation noun agreement, arrangement, article of agreement, bargain, bond, compact, concordat, condition, contract, convention, covenant, deal, pact, pactum, promise, provise, specification, stipulatio, treaty, understanding
So if the cabinet note is fulfilled by MoS and then they request the "stipulation" to be met and TTFA do not comply, what will be the effects of this broken "agreement", "bargain" "bond" "compact" "understanding" "specification" or , bloody hell "CONDITION"?
You're just playing with words instead of answering the questions, but your smart reply that my "condition" is in fact a "stipulation" has painted you into a corner because "condition" is a definition of "stipulation".
In any scenario, whatever the word you use, the fact is that if TTFA break this "stipulation" there will likely be no more money released to the current TTFA administration. A promise is a promise, and TTFA agreed to it. Now, answer the damn questions please.
-
OK, so you're as usual, playing with words. The questions I asked that you still haven't answered are: Why was this"stipulation" placed on the Cabinet note and when would any sane person expect this "stipulation" to be met?
To save you the time on google: stipulation noun agreement, arrangement, article of agreement, bargain, bond, compact, concordat, condition, contract, convention, covenant, deal, pact, pactum, promise, provise, specification, stipulatio, treaty, understanding
So if the cabinet note is fulfilled by MoS and then they request the "stipulation" to be met and TTFA do not comply, what will be the effects of this broken "agreement", "bargain" "bond" "compact" "understanding" "specification" or , bloody hell "CONDITION"?
You're just playing with words instead of answering the questions, but your smart reply that my "condition" is in fact a "stipulation" has painted you into a corner because "condition" is a definition of "stipulation".
In any scenario, whatever the word you use, the fact is that if TTFA break this "stipulation" there will likely be no more money released to the current TTFA administration. A promise is a promise, and TTFA agreed to it. Now, answer the damn questions please.
Is it me playing with words... or is it that you're too damn slow and blinkered to look past your desire to justify Sancho's actions to understand what is being explained to you. This is not some common, everyday arrangement, but rather a governmental action. The word "stipulation" in the realm of contracting speaks to an "agreement." In that agreement will be several components to the agreement, which colloquially could be referred to as "terms." What you doggedly keep trying to refer to as a "condition" is simply one term of the larger agreement.
A "condition" by contrast, is some antecedental event which must occur before some other related action could commence. Something that's conditional is typically expressed as "if, then"... if such and such happens, then such and such would follow. The opposite is also true, if X does NOT happen, then some consequential action would or would not follow. There is no such language in the cabinet note no matter how you spin it. You could argue that this was the intent, but it's not an argument that would get you very far because there's no evidence that this was the intent.
You insist that I should answer for why the term of the agreement was included... as if I'm some sort of mind reader. How would I know? Best I could hazard to guess is that they wanted the TTFA to produce audited accounts so that they would know where government monies were being spent by the FA. That is fair. However there is no indication as to when the TTFA has to produce this accounting, since there is no time frame referenced or timeline given. I could see if the note said something along the lines of "in order to", or "as a condition of this agreement", or "should the TTFA not produce accounts by..." or something like that, but the note is silent on that. I could also see if a year after the note was passed the TTFA still hasn't produced any accounting... but Sancho took over 4 months after the note was passed and immediately came in grandstanding in the press about how there will be no funding if audits are not produced, then decided all by himself that the TTFA were not complying with the agreement... after only 4 months mind you, and decided to halt funding for the Senior Men's and for the coaching staff.
You could try and justify it all you want, but it was both unilateral and heavy-handed, if not vindictive... and no matter your protests to the contrary, given the current political climate, as well as the simmering animosity between Sancho and the TTFA, it is very likely that there was an element of vindictiveness to it as well. You swore up and down last year that Sancho had no political aspirations, despite the clear naked agenda... yet here it is he's campaigning for a parliamentary seat today. Either you don't know your boy as well as you think you do. or you're just as conniving and deceitful as he's revealing himself to be.
-
OK, so you're as usual, playing with words. The questions I asked that you still haven't answered are: Why was this"stipulation" placed on the Cabinet note and when would any sane person expect this "stipulation" to be met?
To save you the time on google: stipulation noun agreement, arrangement, article of agreement, bargain, bond, compact, concordat, condition, contract, convention, covenant, deal, pact, pactum, promise, provise, specification, stipulatio, treaty, understanding
So if the cabinet note is fulfilled by MoS and then they request the "stipulation" to be met and TTFA do not comply, what will be the effects of this broken "agreement", "bargain" "bond" "compact" "understanding" "specification" or , bloody hell "CONDITION"?
You're just playing with words instead of answering the questions, but your smart reply that my "condition" is in fact a "stipulation" has painted you into a corner because "condition" is a definition of "stipulation".
In any scenario, whatever the word you use, the fact is that if TTFA break this "stipulation" there will likely be no more money released to the current TTFA administration. A promise is a promise, and TTFA agreed to it. Now, answer the damn questions please.
Is it me playing with words... or is it that you're too damn slow and blinkered to look past your desire to justify Sancho's actions to understand what is being explained to you. This is not some common, everyday arrangement, but rather a governmental action. The word "stipulation" in the realm of contracting speaks to an "agreement." In that agreement will be several components to the agreement, which colloquially could be referred to as "terms." What you doggedly keep trying to refer to as a "condition" is simply one term of the larger agreement.
A "condition" by contrast, is some antecedental event which must occur before some other related action could commence. Something that's conditional is typically expressed as "if, then"... if such and such happens, then such and such would follow. The opposite is also true, if X does NOT happen, then some consequential action would or would not follow. There is no such language in the cabinet note no matter how you spin it. You could argue that this was the intent, but it's not an argument that would get you very far because there's no evidence that this was the intent.
You insist that I should answer for why the term of the agreement was included... as if I'm some sort of mind reader. How would I know? Best I could hazard to guess is that they wanted the TTFA to produce audited accounts so that they would know where government monies were being spent by the FA. That is fair. However there is no indication as to when the TTFA has to produce this accounting, since there is no time frame referenced or timeline given. I could see if the note said something along the lines of "in order to", or "as a condition of this agreement", or "should the TTFA not produce accounts by..." or something like that, but the note is silent on that. I could also see if a year after the note was passed the TTFA still hasn't produced any accounting... but Sancho took over 4 months after the note was passed and immediately came in grandstanding in the press about how there will be no funding if audits are not produced, then decided all by himself that the TTFA were not complying with the agreement... after only 4 months mind you, and decided to halt funding for the Senior Men's and for the coaching staff.
You could try and justify it all you want, but it was both unilateral and heavy-handed, if not vindictive... and no matter your protests to the contrary, given the current political climate, as well as the simmering animosity between Sancho and the TTFA, it is very likely that there was an element of vindictiveness to it as well. You swore up and down last year that Sancho had no political aspirations, despite the clear naked agenda... yet here it is he's campaigning for a parliamentary seat today. Either you don't know your boy as well as you think you do. or you're just as conniving and deceitful as he's revealing himself to be.
You swore up and down last year that Sancho had no political aspirations, despite the clear naked agenda. That's the agenda only you can see, right? If Sancho had said last year "I want to be Minister of Sport" everyone, including me would have died laughing. But opportunities arise and he took his. There was no plan or agenda. Roberts got fired, Griffith became caretaker and Sancho was in the right place at the right time. Lucky? maybe. Coincidence? Possibly. But then if I said the sky is blue, you'd argue that it is actually colourless.
-
I'm moving on bro... I answered your question, I'm sure still not to your satisfaction, but this is getting tedious.
-
I waiting to see if Sancho will run for a seat this election :D
I hear toco manzanilla.
And bravo supported the unc long time so no scene. Everybody has the right to associate with which ever party they wish.
Bourbon you mean Toco/ Sangre Grande?
Reality seems to have coincidentally caught up with rumour. How fortuitous! (And, notably visible to others). Now that's transparent. ::)
-
I have a gently worn bridge in Brooklyn for sale. PM for details
-
I waiting to see if Sancho will run for a seat this election :D
I hear toco manzanilla.
And bravo supported the unc long time so no scene. Everybody has the right to associate with which ever party they wish.
Bourbon you mean Toco/ Sangre Grande?
Reality seems to have coincidentally caught up with rumour. How fortuitous! (And, notably visible to others). Now that's transparent. ::)
Now you're just being silly. "If Sancho had said last year "I want to be Minister of Sport" everyone, including me would have died laughing. But opportunities arise and he took his."
-
Well at least now we know he's an opportunist.
-
"Silly"? Hmmm. ""Silly"?
I didn't write the script. Iz allyuh world (at least for the time being?), I'm just living in it. The reality is that the gentleman's comments indicate his inclination to seek elected office. And, his comments also confirm the conclusions of attentive observers. That the constituency ends up being Toco/Grande in conformity with a post made three months ago means what? That Bourbon was Griffith's chauffeur? LOL. :rotfl: :rotfl: Spare me nah man. But, you are correct with regard to "silly" ... In that they don't call it "silly season" for no reason. You guys are providing many reasons to support that description.
There is nothing wrong with Sancho having ambitions to political and electoral office. However, the least he could do is not turn this into a charade. Most of us have no time for games or gamesmanship.
-
Sometimes, to go forward, we have to take a few steps back. I find that to be the case here.
I want to be ABSOLUTELY clear. The comments I have made on this thread are entirely of a political nature ... in that they involve my political analysis and assessment. These comments have absolutely NOTHING to do with the comments I have made regarding the Women's Premier League (WPL). The one does not inform the other. As inconvenient as that may be to some, in expressing my opinions, I am solely a captive of my conscience and considered viewpoint ... and will not sublimate or dilute any expression of conscience out of ease, expediency, the comfort of others, or of one hand washing the other. I state this without apology. As such, any attempt to quell my opinion on this particular subject matter amounts to an appeal at suppressing my political speech merely because it is inconvenient to some interests.
A few months ago, I wrote the following content ... and stand by those comments now, as I did then, regardless of what the future presents in terms of the outcome of general elections in September. However, to be clear, these comments are not partisan comments. They concern governance and propriety in office, and would apply under any umbrella that they fit. In this instance, they fit in the context of recent political history, and everyone with an interest in Trinidad & Tobago should similarly be unafraid to voice their opinion without fear or favour.
Corruption is invoked as indictment of this government, but it's not merely corruption that's at the essence of expressed opposition. The disapprobation lies in the sense that the government is morally bankrupt, and is naked even politically, having lost the moral authority with which it was vested on the first day it assumed office.
Globally, corruption is known to exist, and the broader international community accepts that there is an "acceptable level" of corruption. However, the state of play regarding corruption, under this government, long has exceeded those bounds.
Sancho's comments on corruption in the present government, relative to other governments, miss the heart of the matter. At present, mere association with this government is a race to the bottom, not the top. Things are well beyond the point of mitigating the governance deficit effectuated by retributive and distributive preferences of a party whose imperative for governing has been to plunder state resources, distort social harmony, and skirt with anti-democratic responses to sustain continuity in office.
Seeking to implement a comprehensive sports policy framework under the present dispensation can never occur absent a critique of the broader political environment, regardless of how benevolent one's intentions are in the abstract.
The Minister is asking the citizenry to engage in an arithmetic of separating good from ill, per his involvement - when perhaps the better approach would have been to not associate with the evident iills from the inception. The public need not engage in the preferred arithmetic. And, even if they do, there's the likelihood that the resulting calculus is unfavorable.
It's unlikely that anything other than cosmetic change will occur between now and Election Day. Gambling with one's reputation given such political variables is an exercise in poor investment.
Regardless of when Mr. Sancho formulated political ambitions, his political ambition in its present form is incompatible with the concerns of conscience expressed ... regardless of whether he submits as a candidate or not, and regardless of whether he prevails or loses at the polls.
This isn't about 'making enemies' or stirring up trouble unnecessarily; it is about being frank. One would hope we are sensible enough to proceed in the common interest accordingly.