Are we prepared to be banned from 2014 to see TTFF go bankrupt??

[toonmili]

So they didn't tell them a set amount. They told them a percentage... that's dumb. Can't the players take 600k each and cool it. I thought this was just about world cup bonuses. How much bonus do they actually need.

Toonmili, I see you are an "new" warrior.  I take it you are "new" as in you weren't lurking around the site for while and finally decided to join but rather "new" as in just come on de site and eh know the history.  In case of the latter I understand why you ask this question because without SW.net and this forum I would be asking dem same questions too. 

Now if FS' response did clear things up for you, there are tons and tons and tons of threads here to get informed, just ask E-man to help you find dem....doh ask me.....

You're right I have been coming to this site since 2005/06 and never posted until this year. I never followed the whole issue because I thought it would go away and by the time they started black listing and playing crap I decided to treat them like West Indies.

That's why I'm posting now, all the black listing done and there seems to be a real effort to go Brazil.

But I agree that the federation should be punished. But the Federation is Camps and Warner... the federation is a Trinidadian institution and it represents Trinidad. Punish those guys, not the federation. I'm don't see the point in allowing up to BK and having to start all over because of some bad apples... kick them out, get things in order. We don't need to burn a house down because you don't like some of the tenants.

And to Football Supporter.It's not about not getting what they deserve. If people got what they deserve the world would be a totally different place. It's just about not sending the country down another footbal spiral.

These guys at the head need to do the right thing and leave.

[Controversial]

If TTFF didn't pay the players as ordered, it is highly possible that TTFF could be forced into bankruptcy. If this occurs, I believe FIFA would then prevent T&T from playing any FIFA international matches at any level.

Based on what?  Would bankruptcy suddenly divest the TTFF of rights to receipts or disbursement of fund from FIFA/CONCACAF?  Is there something in the FIFA statutes that prescribes such a course following declaration of bankruptcy? Is there precedent establishing such?

How did we suddenly go from bankruptcy to  getting banned?

Thank you Bakes!!!!
I reading thru these post and asking mehself, could we really be banned?!?!
And should we now have a 20-page thread going on and on about how we GETTING (!!!) banned.
Ah know we all here for de "talk" eh but c'mon man (!!!) (said wid ah yankee accent)

bakes has a valid point.

lets say TTFF goes bankrupt, that doesn't mean FIFA will ban them from world football and competitions.

I cannot remember seeing a rule where it states, because a federation goes bankrupt you can ban them, FS is going on pure assumption, he needs some facts to back that up instead of speculation.

What is needed is a new federation within TT, with the CFU being in disarray it presents a perfect opportunity for a rival fed to be started.

with the right leadership and financial backing we can get a fed off the ground and get the support of the different leagues and heads in TT, since the ttff is non functional and requires all sport to function, an application can be made to the cfu and after  2years to FIFA, this providing the different levels of national recognize the fed, there is also an opportunity to create a new structure for football in TT.

right now if a group were to take over the ttff, there is one huge problem, traffic sports own all intl rights for TT games for broadcasting, meaning that the ttff have no control over who sees the game internationally when we play home games. the ttff only owns the rights to broadcast home games within TT, to TT media houses, where there is almost zero revenue.

jw and ttff sold our rights, any group coming into our football will be hesitant, it is better a new fed is started and approved by fifa because then the rights will be back in the hands of trinis and not foreigners and then a profit can be made. For example, if TT plays germany at home, traffic sports owns the rights to broadcast the games internationally, the ttff may work out a deal with traffic to get a portion of the rights if they bring a world class team to TT, but traffic is the holder, this is one reason why the ttff have not arranged any intl friendlies at home with notable teams, because they cannot make broadcast revenues.

[Football supporter]

Ok, certain people here should recognise that this is a discussion forum, and as such, topics are submitted for discussion, not to prove who's clever than who. The topic was not created to discuss the legal niceties of the insolvency procedures of T&T, as it was assumed that people could join the dots themselves and recognise that TTFF could be forced into insolvency. If that was the case, what would be the outcome and are we prepared to accept that possibility. 

To individual statements:

Bakes: Would bankruptcy suddenly divest the TTFF of rights to receipts or disbursement of fund from FIFA/CONCACAF?  I always try to bow to your legal knowledge hoss, but are you serious here? If TTFF fall into insolvency a liquidator would be appointed, correct? He has the power to seize any or all assets required to satisfy creditors at a prescribed level i.e 20c in the $, this includes future guaranteed income. As soon as FIFA's funds hit TTFF they will be seized. Avoidance of this seizure would have to be argued by TTFF and contested by the creditors. In TTFF's case it would be very difficult to prove that under the current administration any funds received would be used correctly.

Controversial: If nobody has been able to run TTFF/TTFA out of town in 30 years, what makes you think it could happen now? And this new group are supposed to work for free for 2 years on the off chance FIFA will recognise them and allow them to take over? Thats supposing, of course, that the Kingmakers in the zones (who were placed there by Warner & Camps) recognise the new group as the de facto federation representing association football in T&T.

 Toonmili: Well this statement says it all  I never followed the whole issue because I thought it would go away and by the time they started black listing and playing crap I decided to treat them like West Indies. That's why I'm posting now, all the black listing done and there seems to be a real effort to go Brazil. Where were you when the players and T&T football needed you? Now you're back on the socawarriors wagon and expect us to do what? Write a letter of complaint to the "bad apples" asking them if they mind leaving? For 5 f**king years people here have been fighting to get rid of TTFF and you come with the statement These guys at the head need to do the right thing and leave. PUHLEASSE.

Tempo: The concern of the '06 players court victory somehow causing the current players and fans hardship is a red-herring.  You may be right. However, picture this: TTFF are forced into insolvency. They have no money and no income. How will FIFA correspond with TTFF? BBM? How will TTFF fulfill their obligations such as regular committee meetings, attendance at conferences, plus all of the myriad tasks a federation must do? Maybe Camps and Groden will work for free, but can we allow an insolvent federation, probably under investigation, represent T&T football?

I started this topic to see who cares about the long term future of T&T football and to discuss options. Regarding the banning of TTFF by FIFA, these were the points that crossed my mind when I started the topic......

First, as mentioned, FIFA can do what the hell they like. And Blatter wants to destroy Warner, and what better way to do it?

Secondly, how could TTFF represent anything if they are forced into bankruptcy? As soon as TTFF received one dollar it would be taken by the liquidator. So would everyone work for free, with no office, lights, computers?

Third, as I understand it, usually there is an investigation into the cause of bankruptcy and the destruction of documents and concealment of assets are a crime. (In this instance undeclared funds would be an asset).

Fourth, assistance could be given to restructure TTFF and allow them to continue trading. It is likely that this support would come from the Ministry of Sport, however, given the current court case and allegations (including those from the judge) that money has disappeared, would probably require a replacement of officials. This would be because it would be political suicide to give govt funds to an organisation being run by officers who had taken TTFF into insolvency and who have failed to correctly account for millions of $. This could be deemed as govt interference and I believe around 8 nations have been banned or suspended for this reason, and FIFA recently threatened France with suspension for the same reason.

[toonmili]

I'm sorry but I was off Soca Warriors because I don't support any thing half-a*s. That was a half -a*s team and I didn't feel they represented Trinidad's true potential. I was still rooting for the guys in thier club careers but I wasn't about the get excited to a team that was weak and not our best. The beef was never with the players. It was with the TTFF. Same way, my beef is not with players of the West Indies team, it's with the board and the Banana Republic mentality.

And yes I am supporting the team now because the Black Listing over and we have our best possible team playing. This is not about jumping on any bandwagon. They probably not going far in qualification and I'm still supporting, most people not even bothering.

I am anything but a Bandwagonist when it comes to supporting Trinidadians. Take Thema Williams, I'm sure most of you have no idea who she is... but let her make it the olympics and everyone will say she's their hero.

And there has to be some other way to get these guys without TTFF going bankrupt. What would England, Germany or Brazil do if they were in a situation like this... certainly not what you're suggesting.

[Football supporter]

I hear you. In England and Germany the media would have hounded Warner out of office in the 1990's and probably Camps too...certainly by now. The supporters would have put pressure on the Associations. The clubs would have pressured their leagues and the leagues would have voted for executives replacement. In reality, certainly in England, Warner & Camps would have resigned by now. There would have been questions asked in parliament and the Minister of Sport would have met Warner & Camps for dinner and suggested "Isn't it time for you chaps to resign? We don't want to have to go down the road of investigations, do we? " Yes, there would have been behind the scenes govt involvement...all deniable of course, but many countries would not have suffered this embarrassment. England even had a parliamentary enquiry into why they didn't win the 2018 bid. And believe it or not, if Warner & Camps didn't resign, MI5 would have followed them around until they had a "lever" to remove them, such as a sex scandal or financial matter. It would never have made the papers, just a brown envelope containing evidence and a suggestion to resign. Trust me...I'm being serious here. 

[Controversial]

Ok, certain people here should recognise that this is a discussion forum, and as such, topics are submitted for discussion, not to prove who's clever than who. The topic was not created to discuss the legal niceties of the insolvency procedures of T&T, as it was assumed that people could join the dots themselves and recognise that TTFF could be forced into insolvency. If that was the case, what would be the outcome and are we prepared to accept that possibility. 

To individual statements:

Bakes: Would bankruptcy suddenly divest the TTFF of rights to receipts or disbursement of fund from FIFA/CONCACAF?  I always try to bow to your legal knowledge hoss, but are you serious here? If TTFF fall into insolvency a liquidator would be appointed, correct? He has the power to seize any or all assets required to satisfy creditors at a prescribed level i.e 20c in the $, this includes future guaranteed income. As soon as FIFA's funds hit TTFF they will be seized. Avoidance of this seizure would have to be argued by TTFF and contested by the creditors. In TTFF's case it would be very difficult to prove that under the current administration any funds received would be used correctly.

Controversial: If nobody has been able to run TTFF/TTFA out of town in 30 years, what makes you think it could happen now? And this new group are supposed to work for free for 2 years on the off chance FIFA will recognise them and allow them to take over? Thats supposing, of course, that the Kingmakers in the zones (who were placed there by Warner & Camps) recognise the new group as the de facto federation representing association football in T&T.

 Toonmili: Well this statement says it all  I never followed the whole issue because I thought it would go away and by the time they started black listing and playing crap I decided to treat them like West Indies. That's why I'm posting now, all the black listing done and there seems to be a real effort to go Brazil. Where were you when the players and T&T football needed you? Now you're back on the socawarriors wagon and expect us to do what? Write a letter of complaint to the "bad apples" asking them if they mind leaving? For 5 f**king years people here have been fighting to get rid of TTFF and you come with the statement These guys at the head need to do the right thing and leave. PUHLEASSE.

Tempo: The concern of the '06 players court victory somehow causing the current players and fans hardship is a red-herring.  You may be right. However, picture this: TTFF are forced into insolvency. They have no money and no income. How will FIFA correspond with TTFF? BBM? How will TTFF fulfill their obligations such as regular committee meetings, attendance at conferences, plus all of the myriad tasks a federation must do? Maybe Camps and Groden will work for free, but can we allow an insolvent federation, probably under investigation, represent T&T football?

I started this topic to see who cares about the long term future of T&T football and to discuss options. Regarding the banning of TTFF by FIFA, these were the points that crossed my mind when I started the topic......

First, as mentioned, FIFA can do what the hell they like. And Blatter wants to destroy Warner, and what better way to do it?

Secondly, how could TTFF represent anything if they are forced into bankruptcy? As soon as TTFF received one dollar it would be taken by the liquidator. So would everyone work for free, with no office, lights, computers?

Third, as I understand it, usually there is an investigation into the cause of bankruptcy and the destruction of documents and concealment of assets are a crime. (In this instance undeclared funds would be an asset).

Fourth, assistance could be given to restructure TTFF and allow them to continue trading. It is likely that this support would come from the Ministry of Sport, however, given the current court case and allegations (including those from the judge) that money has disappeared, would probably require a replacement of officials. This would be because it would be political suicide to give govt funds to an organisation being run by officers who had taken TTFF into insolvency and who have failed to correctly account for millions of $. This could be deemed as govt interference and I believe around 8 nations have been banned or suspended for this reason, and FIFA recently threatened France with suspension for the same reason.

are you forgetting that all sport is an extension of the ttff, the ttff still holds broadcast rights to home games being shown by TT media houses, even if ttff go bankrupt, all sport will then take over and still unknowing to the public still be attached to the ttff, since holford is an archivist for the ttff currently.

forming an association and getting things in place takes little money and time, but a lot of planning and future capital when it is approved by fifa. you need to ask yourself the question, which group of individuals want to take over the ttff when they have no control over intl broadcast rights for tt home games?

ask yourself the questions that matter before you jump on the bankruptcy train, do you know hw much revenues are being lost because ttff and jw sold our intl rights to traffic sports? that is a big issue, i would not want to run ttff because they are powerless in certain key areas

you obviously are a newbie to TT politics, money talks in TT, they all have their price and its just a matter of proposing it to them.

the reason why no one made an attempt because jw and ttff had ultimate power, they have fizzled, so now the time is right, ripe for the picking, patience my friend.

[Socapro]

I hear you. In England and Germany the media would have hounded Warner out of office in the 1990's and probably Camps too...certainly by now. The supporters would have put pressure on the Associations. The clubs would have pressured their leagues and the leagues would have voted for executives replacement. In reality, certainly in England, Warner & Camps would have resigned by now. There would have been questions asked in parliament and the Minister of Sport would have met Warner & Camps for dinner and suggested "Isn't it time for you chaps to resign? We don't want to have to go down the road of investigations, do we? " Yes, there would have been behind the scenes govt involvement...all deniable of course, but many countries would not have suffered this embarrassment. England even had a parliamentary enquiry into why they didn't win the 2018 bid. And believe it or not, if Warner & Camps didn't resign, MI5 would have followed them around until they had a "lever" to remove them, such as a sex scandal or financial matter. It would never have made the papers, just a brown envelope containing evidence and a suggestion to resign. Trust me...I'm being serious here. 

A similar thing happened to Warner which forced him to resign from FIFA with the gentle-crook’s agreement of presumption of innocence!

This is why Warner is not too happy with Blatter right now because Blatter has now decided to witch-hunt all those connected closely to Jack inside FIFA/CONCACAF after their gentle-crook’s agreement behind closed doors!

Blatter is having the last laugh now after Jack decided to stab him in the back regards the Bin Hammam Cash for Votes scandal. 

[toonmili]

I hear you. In England and Germany the media would have hounded Warner out of office in the 1990's and probably Camps too...certainly by now. The supporters would have put pressure on the Associations. The clubs would have pressured their leagues and the leagues would have voted for executives replacement. In reality, certainly in England, Warner & Camps would have resigned by now. There would have been questions asked in parliament and the Minister of Sport would have met Warner & Camps for dinner and suggested "Isn't it time for you chaps to resign? We don't want to have to go down the road of investigations, do we? " Yes, there would have been behind the scenes govt involvement...all deniable of course, but many countries would not have suffered this embarrassment. England even had a parliamentary enquiry into why they didn't win the 2018 bid. And believe it or not, if Warner & Camps didn't resign, MI5 would have followed them around until they had a "lever" to remove them, such as a sex scandal or financial matter. It would never have made the papers, just a brown envelope containing evidence and a suggestion to resign. Trust me...I'm being serious here. 

Can they be charged with misuse of public funds. As the Gov't gave them this money, shouldn't it be accounted for. Couldn't they be charged for not auditing,or fabricating financial statements... or something to scare them away.

[Socapro]

I hear you. In England and Germany the media would have hounded Warner out of office in the 1990's and probably Camps too...certainly by now. The supporters would have put pressure on the Associations. The clubs would have pressured their leagues and the leagues would have voted for executives replacement. In reality, certainly in England, Warner & Camps would have resigned by now. There would have been questions asked in parliament and the Minister of Sport would have met Warner & Camps for dinner and suggested "Isn't it time for you chaps to resign? We don't want to have to go down the road of investigations, do we? " Yes, there would have been behind the scenes govt involvement...all deniable of course, but many countries would not have suffered this embarrassment. England even had a parliamentary enquiry into why they didn't win the 2018 bid. And believe it or not, if Warner & Camps didn't resign, MI5 would have followed them around until they had a "lever" to remove them, such as a sex scandal or financial matter. It would never have made the papers, just a brown envelope containing evidence and a suggestion to resign. Trust me...I'm being serious here. 

Can they be charged with misuse of public funds. As the Gov't gave them this money, shouldn't it be accounted for. Couldn't they be charged for not auditing,or fabricating financial statements... or something to scare them away.

Only after they show proper accounts, which is why Warner is desperate to divorce himself from the situation even though he is the one responsible for the missing accounts information as Camps has correctly pointed out!! 

Can you imagine the bacchanal to come if some of that missing money went towards the PP government's election camapign?! 

[toonmili]

I was thinking that same thing. It probably went to buy the Black Berries they were giving out. That's probably why the gov't ain't try to move in on them yet.

[Bakes]

To individual statements:

Bakes: Would bankruptcy suddenly divest the TTFF of rights to receipts or disbursement of fund from FIFA/CONCACAF?  I always try to bow to your legal knowledge hoss, but are you serious here? If TTFF fall into insolvency a liquidator would be appointed, correct? He has the power to seize any or all assets required to satisfy creditors at a prescribed level i.e 20c in the $, this includes future guaranteed income. As soon as FIFA's funds hit TTFF they will be seized. Avoidance of this seizure would have to be argued by TTFF and contested by the creditors. In TTFF's case it would be very difficult to prove that under the current administration any funds received would be used correctly.

Well I appreciate yuh humility... but you eh have to bow to me or what I say, I juss offering opinion like anybody else, but ah know what yuh saying.  That said... of course I'm being serious... why would you think otherwise? As for bankruptcy, personal bankruptcy and commercial bankruptcy are different... although in the interest of full disclosure, that's not my area of specialty. 

Even in commercial bankruptcy (which would apply here) there are many types.  In the US there's Chapter 7 which is the fire sale type you describing; Chapter 11 which is corporate bankruptcy, which allows a corp. to protect its assets while getting its financial affairs in order (reorganization).  Then there's Chapter 13 where the debtor has a steady revenue stream but just needs time to make payments... so the court establishes a payment plan while the assets of the debtor are protected.  This is  very much the situation with the TTFF.  As I've always argued (against the players settling) the TTFF is a goldmine, they will continue to make money as a FIFA franchisee.  McDonald's eh going out of business, neither is FIFA, those franchises almost 100% guaranteed to make money.

So the TTFF don't have to wind up business just because they declare bankruptcy... and frankly nothing in your argument supports your position.  What does FIFA care what happens with the TTFF money after the TTFF receives it? Why would FIFA care that creditors (under your scenario) getting all of it?  Why would you ask me if I'm serious, then yourself give such a jokey response? lol

However, picture this: TTFF are forced into insolvency. They have no money and no income.

.....

Secondly, how could TTFF represent anything if they are forced into bankruptcy? As soon as TTFF received one dollar it would be taken by the liquidator. So would everyone work for free, with no office, lights, computers?
 

You just reaching... bankruptcy is not the same as "unemployment", secondly the whole liquidator talk is fantasy... thirdly, the scenario involving "government interference" is so far-fetched that we might as well be projecting how FIFA would respond if an asteroid hits Dundonald St.... or wherever TTFF have they office now.

[Football supporter]

"secondly the whole liquidator talk is fantasy... thirdly, the scenario involving "government interference" is so far-fetched that we might as well be projecting how FIFA would respond if an asteroid hits Dundonald St.... or wherever TTFF have they office now."

Why is talk of a liquidator, fantasy? Isn't that what usually happens when a sole practitioner files for bankruptcy...a court appoints a liquidator who effectively takes charge of the company until the debts have been satisfied? 

As for govt interference, at this point we're very close to crossing that line with the govt appointing ALLSPORT. Look how France was threatened by FIFA recently or Nigeria and, I believe, Bosnia is still banned for the same thing. I know a lot of this is ifs buts and maybes, but its really not that hard to see the scenario. I mean, how would TTFF run football if its FIFA income is given to the creditors?

[Bakes]

"secondly the whole liquidator talk is fantasy... thirdly, the scenario involving "government interference" is so far-fetched that we might as well be projecting how FIFA would respond if an asteroid hits Dundonald St.... or wherever TTFF have they office now."

Why is talk of a liquidator, fantasy? Isn't that what usually happens when a sole practitioner files for bankruptcy...a court appoints a liquidator who effectively takes charge of the company until the debts have been satisfied? 

As for govt interference, at this point we're very close to crossing that line with the govt appointing ALLSPORT. Look how France was threatened by FIFA recently or Nigeria and, I believe, Bosnia is still banned for the same thing. I know a lot of this is ifs buts and maybes, but its really not that hard to see the scenario. I mean, how would TTFF run football if its FIFA income is given to the creditors?

I don't know what you asking me again... I've already answered both questions above.

Your talk of "liquidator" is fantasy because as I've explained that only happens under a Chapter 7 type of deal where a company is being forced to go out of business... the situation hardly applies to the TTFF as I've already explained.  It baffles me that you would restate your point verbatim as though I never responded to you.  If you want to say that you don't believe what I said then fine.

France tried to intervene in disciplinary affairs of the FFF, the government wanted to crack down on the players and administrators for the World Cup failures.  All Sport is being appointed to oversee the spending of government money... how are the two even remotely similar??  I know we like to talk and hash things out here but a lot of this frankly, is just rumshop talk.

[Football supporter]

"secondly the whole liquidator talk is fantasy... thirdly, the scenario involving "government interference" is so far-fetched that we might as well be projecting how FIFA would respond if an asteroid hits Dundonald St.... or wherever TTFF have they office now."

Why is talk of a liquidator, fantasy? Isn't that what usually happens when a sole practitioner files for bankruptcy...a court appoints a liquidator who effectively takes charge of the company until the debts have been satisfied? 

As for govt interference, at this point we're very close to crossing that line with the govt appointing ALLSPORT. Look how France was threatened by FIFA recently or Nigeria and, I believe, Bosnia is still banned for the same thing. I know a lot of this is ifs buts and maybes, but its really not that hard to see the scenario. I mean, how would TTFF run football if its FIFA income is given to the creditors?

I don't know what you asking me again... I've already answered both questions above.

Your talk of "liquidator" is fantasy because as I've explained that only happens under a Chapter 7 type of deal where a company is being forced to go out of business... the situation hardly applies to the TTFF as I've already explained.  It baffles me that you would restate your point verbatim as though I never responded to you.  If you want to say that you don't believe what I said then fine.

France tried to intervene in disciplinary affairs of the FFF, the government wanted to crack down on the players and administrators for the World Cup failures.  All Sport is being appointed to oversee the spending of government money... how are the two even remotely similar??  I know we like to talk and hash things out here but a lot of this frankly, is just rumshop talk.

Rumshop talk is my level, bro!

I guess maybe liquidator is the wrong term? I think maybe it should be Receiver and I think also trustees are appointed by the courts to oversee the insolvent company, manage its affairs while insolvent and pay the creditors.

I never understood this Chapter 7 stuff as we don't have that in UK, but as T&T law is based on the U.K.s, I assumed that bankruptcy would be the same here? As far as I recall, if you file for bankruptcy, you are usually forced to close the business and a court appointee is put in place.

So maybe "liquidator" baffles you, but I would hope that you're aware that somebody, whatever his title, oversees bankruptcy proceedings. A more useful answer from you would have been to say "its not a liquidator, but I'm not sure what the title is of the person who oversees bankrupcys in T&T. "

I think the similarity between France and TTFF is clear....the word "government"

[Football supporter]

Press statement issued by Mike Townley on 19th October 2011

 With regard to the ongoing litigation between 13 of the 2006 World Cup players and the TTFF the latest development is that the TTFF, and its president Oliver Camps, have failed to comply with a High Court order to make an interim payment of TT$4.26 million. According to the court order this payment had to be made by close of business on 18th October 2011 but no payment has been received. A letter from the Federation’s lawyers suggests that the Federation don’t have the money to pay the amount that has been ordered.

We have given the TTFF, it's president and it's former special advisor every opportunity to resolve this issue promptly and amicably. The issue is simple, Jack Warner promised that the TTFF would pay the players 50% of the FIFA grant and commercial revenue, all we want to know is what that figure amounts to. The TTFF could have given us this information long ago, without the need for complicated, drawn-out and expensive litigation.
 
A letter that was obtained from the Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs in September 2007 stated that;
 
 “the total sum contributed to the Trinidad and Tobago Football Federation by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, Private Sector Organisations and FIFA amounted to TT$ 205,690,113.50”
 
The obvious question that needs to be asked is where did all that money go, how was it spent? This question becomes even more urgent when you examine the Federation’s audited accounts for the years 2005 and 2006. These have been disclosed and they show total income for both years as being just $11,610,992!  The Honourable Justice Devindra Rampersad described the Federations financial status as being "unaccountable".
 
We remain strong in our resolve and maintain complete faith in our judicial system.
 
Based on what the TTFF have now said it appears that the TTFF is currently insolvent and unable to pay its debts as they fall due. Unless this situation is resolved then it would seem inevitable that the TTFF will be subject to some form of insolvency procedure under the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act 2006. This will at least allow for a thorough and independent financial examination by a licensed and appropriately qualified insolvency trustee.
 
We are still hopeful this matter might be resolved without the need to instigate further formal procedural steps against the TTFF, but the prospects do not look promising.
 None of this was of our making and the TTFF have always had the ability to bring an end to the litigation by coming clean about their finances and paying us what they promised.

[Bakes]

Rumshop talk is my level, bro!

I guess maybe liquidator is the wrong term? I think maybe it should be Receiver and I think also trustees are appointed by the courts to oversee the insolvent company, manage its affairs while insolvent and pay the creditors.

I never understood this Chapter 7 stuff as we don't have that in UK, but as T&T law is based on the U.K.s, I assumed that bankruptcy would be the same here? As far as I recall, if you file for bankruptcy, you are usually forced to close the business and a court appointee is put in place.

So maybe "liquidator" baffles you, but I would hope that you're aware that somebody, whatever his title, oversees bankruptcy proceedings. A more useful answer from you would have been to say "its not a liquidator, but I'm not sure what the title is of the person who oversees bankrupcys in T&T. "

I think the similarity between France and TTFF is clear....the word "government"

Congrats on being made rudimentarily familiar with receivership... now have your offline legal adviser explain "trusteeship" to you as well.

Matter of fact, I think it would just be better if they just create an account and come post for themselves... because you're still not clear on the concept.  A receiver's responsibility are to conserve the assets of the debtor, not to be a "liquidator" of the assets.  I've tried many times to explain that bankruptcy does not force the entity out of business... you keep insisting that it does.

Rather than argue with you I'll just point you in the right direction http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/a2007-26.pdf... if you need help finding the relevant Sections let me know.

[Football supporter]

Bakes, you are the lawyer not me. You will see the source of my "offline adviser" sometime today. Fortunately I sometimes have access to facts. Unfortunately, I do not always have time to study infinite details on law, which, to be fair, bores me to tears.

I have never ascribed to being a legal expert. I usually post opinions which I believe make good discussion points. Meanwhile, you seem determined to scrutinise and criticise peoples views as if in a court of law. This then detracts from the argument. So what if bribery isn't a law. Its wrong, at its immoral for politicians to be involved with. So what if banktuptcy doesn't have a liquidator, the point is, could TTFF become bankrupt. You seem more anxious to prove people wrong than to offer your personal opinion at times.

Your legal knowledge is very helpful, but it should not be used on this site as a weapon to prove you are always right and posters are wrong. It would be more helpful if you just corrected errors in a polite. helpful way, otherwise you incite an unwanted reaction that detracts from the subject.

As I said, I'm no lawyer, and I apologise if I sometimes get legal facts wrong. I also know that at times I takes scenarios to the nth degree and you may feel this is fantasy.

However, sometimes I get near the target. Back in 2007 when most people here said Warner would never be beaten, its impossible to get him in court and FIFA would always support him, I argued differently.

As far as I'm concerned, bankruptcy means you can't continue in business and you only remain in existence for the benefit of the creditors, once satisfied, the business is wound up. Of course, it may be different in T&T and it certainly is in USA. I have no time or interest in reading pages of legal documents which could be broken down into short facts. I ain't going to court and if I did I'd have lawyers to explain it to me.

Your impression that a bankrupt TTFF would merrily continue to trade, collect FIFA money, have a happy bunch of staff working for free from a table in KFC, with no repecussions from FIFA is childish, misleading and unhelpful. Bankruptcy is the end for a business and has ongoing repercussions for the officers involved that last for years.

I really don't know the correct legal terminology, but in my world the technical term for bankrupcy is "You're f*cked"

[Bakes]

Bakes, you are the lawyer not me. You will see the source of my "offline adviser" sometime today. Fortunately I sometimes have access to facts. Unfortunately, I do not always have time to study infinite details on law, which, to be fair, bores me to tears. 1

I have never ascribed to being a legal expert. I usually post opinions which I believe make good discussion points. Meanwhile, you seem determined to scrutinise and criticise peoples views as if in a court of law. This then detracts from the argument. So what if bribery isn't a law. Its wrong, at its immoral for politicians to be involved with. So what if banktuptcy doesn't have a liquidator, the point is, could TTFF become bankrupt. You seem more anxious to prove people wrong than to offer your personal opinion at times.2

Your legal knowledge is very helpful, but it should not be used on this site as a weapon to prove you are always right and posters are wrong. It would be more helpful if you just corrected errors in a polite. helpful way, otherwise you incite an unwanted reaction that detracts from the subject.3

As I said, I'm no lawyer, and I apologise if I sometimes get legal facts wrong. I also know that at times I takes scenarios to the nth degree and you may feel this is fantasy.4

However, sometimes I get near the target. Back in 2007 when most people here said Warner would never be beaten, its impossible to get him in court and FIFA would always support him, I argued differently. 5

As far as I'm concerned, bankruptcy means you can't continue in business and you only remain in existence for the benefit of the creditors, once satisfied, the business is wound up. Of course, it may be different in T&T and it certainly is in USA. I have no time or interest in reading pages of legal documents which could be broken down into short facts. I ain't going to court and if I did I'd have lawyers to explain it to me. 6

Your impression that a bankrupt TTFF would merrily continue to trade, collect FIFA money, have a happy bunch of staff working for free from a table in KFC, with no repecussions from FIFA is childish, misleading and unhelpful. Bankruptcy is the end for a business and has ongoing repercussions for the officers involved that last for years.7

I really don't know the correct legal terminology, but in my world the technical term for bankrupcy is "You're f*cked"

1 As you should have figured out by now, I am well aware of the identity of your 'offline adviser'.

2 As much as possible, I try to deal in facts, not fantasy or rumshop talk about what might could perhaps happen.  I don't argue to prove I'm right... I argue because I believe I'm right and my position on legal matters is supported by my understanding of the law.  So I make no apologies for rubbishing your initial assertion that Jack Warner should be arrested and charged when in fact he committed no crime. 

In my opinion, it cheapens the discourse when grown men get emotional and start mouthing all manners of hysterical nonsense, driven purely by emotion and animosity towards Jack. Long before you came on the scene I (along with others) have been calling for Jack's removal, and long after you slink back to wherever you came from, we'll be here doing the same.  Having apparently accepted the futility of bleating for Warner to be arrested, you've now hooked onto the "he's immoral, he should resign" talk.  My only concerns with Warner as a Minister, is the job he's doing as Minister.  As long as his performance and integrity in the performance of his public affairs remains unimpeachable, then his constituents who elected him deserve to have their democratic choice reflected accordingly.  What I've hinted to you before I will now say directly, I find your attitude and comments towards the people to be very patronizing and borderline contemptuous.  Just because a Trini says it, don't be so foolish and tone deaf as to think that you too are at liberty to make some of the statements you make from time to time.  You should consider yourself warned particularly given your circumstances of actually living among the very people you so openly deride.  When you and your fellow Englishmen get your moral shit together, then you can presume to get off your colonial perch and come lecture us here on the plantation.

3 I have no patience for nonsense and if I make attempts to clarify misinformation then the information should be taken for what it's worth.  All along my focus has been to build a solid case against Jack... not just throw shit at him in hopes of seeing what sticks.  As I said, in my opinion that cheapens the discourse.  You on the other hand love coming up with these fanciful scenarios and positing them as fact "TTFF will go bankrupt and FIFA will ban them". I asked you based on what and you essentially respond by parroting whatever is told to you offline. If that's how you prefer to operate then who am I to argue with you? You don't like my tone?  Not really my concern... but the line forms around the corner.

4 See above.

5 Is that what you offline adviser is telling you?  Really?  I find if funny that you presume that the source of my knowledge is only US law.  US law delineates among the forms of bankruptcy in a much neater way that is accessible to the average person than does the TT and English code... in general terms the issue is dealt with in pretty much the same way.  But why am I wasting my time explaining that to you when you already have all the wrong info you could ever need?  More on this below.

6 I doubt anyone's really interested in your personal opinions on what bankruptcy entails.  Not when they can have facts instead.

7 I stated for you what the law in Trinidad is... I didn't give you "my impression".  I never said anything about the TTFF having staff working for free, you must have fished that from your ass... no doubt the source of your other fantastical comments.  You claim that bankruptcy will result in "repercussions" from FIFA.  I appreciate that this is your opinion... but you know what they say about opinions.  If you have any fact in support of that opinion we certainly haven't heard them yet... want to phone a friend?

What I said was "childish", "misleading" and "unhelpful"... did you form that opinion all by yourself (ignorant of the law as you admit to be) or was it also "explained" to you offline that my legal opinion was childish, misleading and unhelpful?  Do you... or the puppeteer who has his arm up your ass moving your lips have any source that says bankruptcy is the end for a business?  If not, then let me add more childish, misleading and unhelpful sources to the discussion:

I won't want you to be "bored" by referring you to "Chapters" and "Sections"... I'll use page numbers so that it's accessible for even someone like you.

Page 17
(2) The interim receiver appointed under
subsection (1) may, under the direction of the Court,
take conservatory measures and summarily dispose
of property that is perishable or likely to depreciate
rapidly in value and exercise such control over the
business of the debtor as the Court deems advisable, but
the interim receiver shall not unduly interfere with the
debtor in the carrying out of his business except as may
be necessary for conservatory purposes or to comply
with the order of the Court.

"may" means that appointment of a receiver isn't automatic upon declaration of bankruptcy... but rather it is within the court's discretion to do so, if the court deems it the appropriate course for preservation of the entity's assets.  The TTFF's most valuable assets are whatever real estate it owns, along with it's FIFA franchise. Neither are perishable, and it is arguable that they will diminish in value.  So appointment of a receiver in this circumstance is hardly automatic.

The activities of the receiver are proscribed by the Court... note the admonishment that only by leave of the Court can the receiver "unduly" interfere with the debtor (TTFF) running its business.  Tell me where does that say the business MUST wind up?  Where does that say "it is the end for the business"?  Is that childish and unhelpful enough?

P. 18
An appointment of an interim receiver may be
made under subsection (1) only if it is shown to the
Court to be necessary for the protection of—
(a) the debtor’s estate; or
(b) the interests of the creditor who sent the
notice under section 13.

Again... this is self-explanatory, but let me reiterate: appointment of a receiver is not at all automatic, so that ought to rubbish your fire sale argument.  Unless the assets of the TTFF are jeopardized (should they declare bankruptcy, not even that is a given) then the Court is unlikely to appoint one.  Again... nothing here, or any other chapter, verse, section or sub-section of the law states that the business MUST wind up it's affairs as you, and apparently the rest of the lunatics in your "world" are asserting.  Feel free to call me ass however much it gives comfort to your soul, but in the end at least have enough grace to acknowledge that I am right... or just have your adviser move your lips for you.

[Football supporter]

Bakes, you are the lawyer not me. You will see the source of my "offline adviser" sometime today. Fortunately I sometimes have access to facts. Unfortunately, I do not always have time to study infinite details on law, which, to be fair, bores me to tears. 1

I have never ascribed to being a legal expert. I usually post opinions which I believe make good discussion points. Meanwhile, you seem determined to scrutinise and criticise peoples views as if in a court of law. This then detracts from the argument. So what if bribery isn't a law. Its wrong, at its immoral for politicians to be involved with. So what if banktuptcy doesn't have a liquidator, the point is, could TTFF become bankrupt. You seem more anxious to prove people wrong than to offer your personal opinion at times.2

Your legal knowledge is very helpful, but it should not be used on this site as a weapon to prove you are always right and posters are wrong. It would be more helpful if you just corrected errors in a polite. helpful way, otherwise you incite an unwanted reaction that detracts from the subject.3

As I said, I'm no lawyer, and I apologise if I sometimes get legal facts wrong. I also know that at times I takes scenarios to the nth degree and you may feel this is fantasy.4

However, sometimes I get near the target. Back in 2007 when most people here said Warner would never be beaten, its impossible to get him in court and FIFA would always support him, I argued differently. 5

As far as I'm concerned, bankruptcy means you can't continue in business and you only remain in existence for the benefit of the creditors, once satisfied, the business is wound up. Of course, it may be different in T&T and it certainly is in USA. I have no time or interest in reading pages of legal documents which could be broken down into short facts. I ain't going to court and if I did I'd have lawyers to explain it to me. 6

Your impression that a bankrupt TTFF would merrily continue to trade, collect FIFA money, have a happy bunch of staff working for free from a table in KFC, with no repecussions from FIFA is childish, misleading and unhelpful. Bankruptcy is the end for a business and has ongoing repercussions for the officers involved that last for years.7

I really don't know the correct legal terminology, but in my world the technical term for bankrupcy is "You're f*cked"

1 As you should have figured out by now, I am well aware of the identity of your 'offline adviser'.

2 As much as possible, I try to deal in facts, not fantasy or rumshop talk about what might could perhaps happen.  I don't argue to prove I'm right... I argue because I believe I'm right and my position on legal matters is supported by my understanding of the law.  So I make no apologies for rubbishing your initial assertion that Jack Warner should be arrested and charged when in fact he committed no crime. 

In my opinion, it cheapens the discourse when grown men get emotional and start mouthing all manners of hysterical nonsense, driven purely by emotion and animosity towards Jack. Long before you came on the scene I (along with others) have been calling for Jack's removal, and long after you slink back to wherever you came from, we'll be here doing the same.  Having apparently accepted the futility of bleating for Warner to be arrested, you've now hooked onto the "he's immoral, he should resign" talk.  My only concerns with Warner as a Minister, is the job he's doing as Minister.  As long as his performance and integrity in the performance of his public affairs remains unimpeachable, then his constituents who elected him deserve to have their democratic choice reflected accordingly.  What I've hinted to you before I will now say directly, I find your attitude and comments towards the people to be very patronizing and borderline contemptuous.  Just because a Trini says it, don't be so foolish and tone deaf as to think that you too are at liberty to make some of the statements you make from time to time.  You should consider yourself warned particularly given your circumstances of actually living among the very people you so openly deride.  When you and your fellow Englishmen get your moral shit together, then you can presume to get off your colonial perch and come lecture us here on the plantation.

3 I have no patience for nonsense and if I make attempts to clarify misinformation then the information should be taken for what it's worth.  All along my focus has been to build a solid case against Jack... not just throw shit at him in hopes of seeing what sticks.  As I said, in my opinion that cheapens the discourse.  You on the other hand love coming up with these fanciful scenarios and positing them as fact "TTFF will go bankrupt and FIFA will ban them". I asked you based on what and you essentially respond by parroting whatever is told to you offline. If that's how you prefer to operate then who am I to argue with you? You don't like my tone?  Not really my concern... but the line forms around the corner.

4 See above.

5 Is that what you offline adviser is telling you?  Really?  I find if funny that you presume that the source of my knowledge is only US law.  US law delineates among the forms of bankruptcy in a much neater way that is accessible to the average person than does the TT and English code... in general terms the issue is dealt with in pretty much the same way.  But why am I wasting my time explaining that to you when you already have all the wrong info you could ever need?  More on this below.

6 I doubt anyone's really interested in your personal opinions on what bankruptcy entails.  Not when they can have facts instead.

7 I stated for you what the law in Trinidad is... I didn't give you "my impression".  I never said anything about the TTFF having staff working for free, you must have fished that from your ass... no doubt the source of your other fantastical comments.  You claim that bankruptcy will result in "repercussions" from FIFA.  I appreciate that this is your opinion... but you know what they say about opinions.  If you have any fact in support of that opinion we certainly haven't heard them yet... want to phone a friend?

What I said was "childish", "misleading" and "unhelpful"... did you form that opinion all by yourself (ignorant of the law as you admit to be) or was it also "explained" to you offline that my legal opinion was childish, misleading and unhelpful?  Do you... or the puppeteer who has his arm up your ass moving your lips have any source that says bankruptcy is the end for a business?  If not, then let me add more childish, misleading and unhelpful sources to the discussion:

I won't want you to be "bored" by referring you to "Chapters" and "Sections"... I'll use page numbers so that it's accessible for even someone like you.

Page 17
(2) The interim receiver appointed under
subsection (1) may, under the direction of the Court,
take conservatory measures and summarily dispose
of property that is perishable or likely to depreciate
rapidly in value and exercise such control over the
business of the debtor as the Court deems advisable, but
the interim receiver shall not unduly interfere with the
debtor in the carrying out of his business except as may
be necessary for conservatory purposes or to comply
with the order of the Court.

"may" means that appointment of a receiver isn't automatic upon declaration of bankruptcy... but rather it is within the court's discretion to do so, if the court deems it the appropriate course for preservation of the entity's assets.  The TTFF's most valuable assets are whatever real estate it owns, along with it's FIFA franchise. Neither are perishable, and it is arguable that they will diminish in value.  So appointment of a receiver in this circumstance is hardly automatic.

The activities of the receiver are proscribed by the Court... note the admonishment that only by leave of the Court can the receiver "unduly" interfere with the debtor (TTFF) running its business.  Tell me where does that say the business MUST wind up?  Where does that say "it is the end for the business"?  Is that childish and unhelpful enough?

P. 18
An appointment of an interim receiver may be
made under subsection (1) only if it is shown to the
Court to be necessary for the protection of—
(a) the debtor’s estate; or
(b) the interests of the creditor who sent the
notice under section 13.

Again... this is self-explanatory, but let me reiterate: appointment of a receiver is not at all automatic, so that ought to rubbish your fire sale argument.  Unless the assets of the TTFF are jeopardized (should they declare bankruptcy, not even that is a given) then the Court is unlikely to appoint one.  Again... nothing here, or any other chapter, verse, section or sub-section of the law states that the business MUST wind up it's affairs as you, and apparently the rest of the lunatics in your "world" are asserting.  Feel free to call me ass however much it gives comfort to your soul, but in the end at least have enough grace to acknowledge that I am right... or just have your adviser move your lips for you.

Well, well, well, you actually gave some helpful information. Thank you for that. So the law is really based on "maybes", and therefore neither you or I know exactly what will happen?  But somehow, my opinion is worthless while yours is gospel?

I have no offline advisor...it is a figment of your imagination, or maybe its part of the zionist plot or us whiteys trying to reconquer the commonwealth. You racism and conspiroucy theories are becoming way out of line. Maybe you have some wealthy Arabs backing you off line?

The TTFFs most valuable asset is its status of the representative of football in T&T. As you mentioned, TTFF should still continue to receive FIFA funding

To be honest, your opinion of Jack Warners honesty seems to waiver depending on the post. You now say: "My only concerns with Warner as a Minister, is the job he's doing as Minister.  As long as his performance and integrity in the performance of his public affairs remains unimpeachable, then his constituents who elected him deserve to have their democratic choice reflected accordingly."  So, in your opinion (which is more important than mine) it doesn't matter what Jack does as long as he's not wearing his politicians hat. Because he has no integrity, and we will soon see if he is unimpeachable. In the meantime, his constituents have the right to decide if they wish for him to continue representing them.

You say you have been calling for Jacks removal. Really? How. By saying on this site "Jack must go"? Wow, you're a real footsoldier, bro. A real militany activist. Don't come at me with your plantation talk, when you're prepared to just sit and let the boss man (be he white or black) continue to cower you and do whatever he wants.

Any racism I carry with me is passive and through no malice, just ignorance of not being a person of colour. Your racism is far more deeper and you need to examine the reasons for that, especially the need to play the race card when it suits you.

I can live with our disagreements and name calling, but once you resort to overt racism, you cross the line. Now, you. too, have been warned (whatever that means)   

[Bakes]

LOL...well, this is certainly a first.  I don't think I've ever been called a racist before, but whatever.

I gave this information from the very start... I just didn't want to turn the discussion into a law course.  You of course dismissed my opinion as being based on US law, and me fighting down other people's opinions and trying to prove that I'm right.  Oh, yes... and that it was childish etc. etc.

I have no idea what racism and "conspiroucy" theories you're referring to... nor do I have any idea where the "whiteys" talk comes in.  But hey, if that how you feel then by all means get it off your chest.

Aside from moving from neutral to anti- Jack Warner, my opinion of the man hasn't waivered.  As I've suggested before, your personal animosity towards the man makes you incapable of objectively discussing him.  Since the bribery issue came up 5 months ago I've always looked at the potential sanctions for Jack from a criminal and ministerial standpoint.  I formed the opinion very early on that Jack committed no crime, and time will tell if that is proven correct.  I also said from early on that he is doing an effective job in his ministerial capacity and that whatever his complicity in the Bin Hamman affair I don't consider them serious enough to require resignation.  That's my personal opinion, I don't speak for anyone else, not his PM, not his constituents.  Again, time will tell.  I explained that as long and his integrity in office isn't compromised then my opinion remains the same. Somehow you've concluded that to mean that I am cool with Jack doing whatever he wants "whenever he's not wearing his politician's hat".  I really don't think it's necessary for me to respond to that bit of foolishness.

You have no idea what I have or haven't been doing in calling for Jack's removal, and you will remain ignorant in that regard as I don't see the need to waste my time enlightening you.  Beyond that, the paucity of your comprehension is stunning.  You've read criticism of what I perceive to be a condescending, neo-colonial attitude from you towards the people of TnT... and somehow interpreted that to be evidence of "far more deeper racism" on my part.  I can only conclude that you are very uncomfortable in your thin white skin to jump to such a far-fetched conclusion. 

For beginners, I never accused you of any racism, passive or malicious.  What I did point out is the way you have of lecturing us that "if this was England...." as though your English shit doesn't stink.  Last I checked Englishmen come in all colors, hues and ethnicities... but I've never been there personally so I stand to be corrected on that.  I'm most curious then as to how criticism of this condescending, patronizing attitude becomes "far more deeper racism" on my part.  Not that I'm troubled by the accusation, it is so foolish as to be laughable.  It is very much in keeping with observations I've had about certain segments of the English population though... you're quite adept at drumming up outrage when it conveniently suits you.  Ironic then that you should accuse me of playing the race card when it suits me.  I guarantee you you're the only person on this site who holds that opinion, and guarantee you that you can't substantiate the charge.  But as I said... it really doesn't make a difference to me.  Better than you have called me worse.

I'm glad you added that "whatever that means" to your warning... because indeed, I have no idea whatever that means.

[Football supporter]

LOL...well, this is certainly a first.  I don't think I've ever been called a racist before, but whatever.

I gave this information from the very start... I just didn't want to turn the discussion into a law course.  You of course dismissed my opinion as being based on US law, and me fighting down other people's opinions and trying to prove that I'm right.  Oh, yes... and that it was childish etc. etc.

I have no idea what racism and "conspiroucy" theories you're referring to... nor do I have any idea where the "whiteys" talk comes in.  But hey, if that how you feel then by all means get it off your chest.

Aside from moving from neutral to anti- Jack Warner, my opinion of the man hasn't waivered.  As I've suggested before, your personal animosity towards the man makes you incapable of objectively discussing him.  Since the bribery issue came up 5 months ago I've always looked at the potential sanctions for Jack from a criminal and ministerial standpoint.  I formed the opinion very early on that Jack committed no crime, and time will tell if that is proven correct.  I also said from early on that he is doing an effective job in his ministerial capacity and that whatever his complicity in the Bin Hamman affair I don't consider them serious enough to require resignation.  That's my personal opinion, I don't speak for anyone else, not his PM, not his constituents.  Again, time will tell.  I explained that as long and his integrity in office isn't compromised then my opinion remains the same. Somehow you've concluded that to mean that I am cool with Jack doing whatever he wants "whenever he's not wearing his politician's hat".  I really don't think it's necessary for me to respond to that bit of foolishness.

You have no idea what I have or haven't been doing in calling for Jack's removal, and you will remain ignorant in that regard as I don't see the need to waste my time enlightening you.  Beyond that, the paucity of your comprehension is stunning.  You've read criticism of what I perceive to be a condescending, neo-colonial attitude from you towards the people of TnT... and somehow interpreted that to be evidence of "far more deeper racism" on my part.  I can only conclude that you are very uncomfortable in your thin white skin to jump to such a far-fetched conclusion. 

For beginners, I never accused you of any racism, passive or malicious.  What I did point out is the way you have of lecturing us that "if this was England...." as though your English shit doesn't stink.  Last I checked Englishmen come in all colors, hues and ethnicities... but I've never been there personally so I stand to be corrected on that.  I'm most curious then as to how criticism of this condescending, patronizing attitude becomes "far more deeper racism" on my part.  Not that I'm troubled by the accusation, it is so foolish as to be laughable.  It is very much in keeping with observations I've had about certain segments of the English population though... you're quite adept at drumming up outrage when it conveniently suits you.  Ironic then that you should accuse me of playing the race card when it suits me.  I guarantee you you're the only person on this site who holds that opinion, and guarantee you that you can't substantiate the charge.  But as I said... it really doesn't make a difference to me.  Better than you have called me worse.

I'm glad you added that "whatever that means" to your warning... because indeed, I have no idea whatever that means.

Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination. In the modern English language, the term "racism" is used predominantly as a pejorative epithet. It is applied especially to the practice or advocacy of racial discrimination of a pernicious nature (i.e. which harms particular groups of people), and which is often justified by recourse to racial stereotyping or pseudo-science.

I don't know, racism is a very emotional word, and perhaps I should have used xenophobic instead. Either way, racism is subject to how the recipient feels in reaction to particular statements or actions. In this instance, my offence was taken first as an Englishman and secondly as a white man.

This statement was uneccesary: "When you and your fellow Englishmen get your moral shit together, then you can presume to get off your colonial perch and come lecture us here on the plantation."

Whatever your intentions it read to me (and still does) that every Englishman is the same, none have any morals, we all look down on black people as beneath us and still believe that black people have nothing to contribute except hard labour. If you cannot see how this would offend then you are beyond help. I'm not sure of your intentions with that statement, but I can see no reason for it other than to state that because I'm English (and the reference to colonial perch and plantation seems to highlight the fact that I am white) I am condescending to all black people.

You are not a plantation worker , you are a lawyer living in USA, so reference that. Don't drag this shit into this. Whatever happened in colonial days had nothing to do with me or my working class family. Just like I'm not blaming the people who invented and developed slavery like the Libyans, Egyptians, Assyrians, Indians and African tribes, centuries before an Englishman had even left his small island. History is there as a lesson, not to be a stick to beat people with. We should never forget, nor should we use it at the first opportunity to criticise one man because of his race.

"I'm glad you added that "whatever that means" to your warning... because indeed, I have no idea whatever that means."
This sums up your responses on this site. You said "You should consider yourself warned particularly given your circumstances of actually living among the very people you so openly deride." You can't even remember what you wrote!
As I said, I have no idea what you mean by that. Was it a threat? Because I'm white and live in Trinidad, I'm not safe? What does it mean?

[Bakes]

I knew you would latch onto that "certain segments" talk and infer a racial reference, since that is where your mind was anyways. I speak of individuals in government, in business and particularly in the media.

I spoke of "Englishmen" because perhaps you haven't been following the articles and comments to those articles, in the British media.  Trinidad is being painted as this corrupt little outpost, with some suggesting that the best thing that ever happened to the Caribbean was English colonialization.  Similar attitudes were expressed in the wake of the London riots... "send them back to wherever they came from... if we didn't go over there and rescue them from the jungle they wouldn't be here tearing up our cities".  So yeah... "Englishmen"  hardluck if you take that however you want to take it.

This from people living in a country where an official government cover up for the past 22 years have many blaming Liverpool fans for Hillsborough when it was the police at fault.  Did the media hound the ones responsible out of office? Was Kelvin MacKenzie of The Sun hounded from "office"?  But you would have us believe that England is so virtuous that nothing like this would ever happen there.  THIS is what I meant by getting your own shit together first. 

This is what I meant by talking down to us here in Trinidad... which was not only a colony but a plantation colony.  Even the white plantation owners were looked down upon by the English... If you knew your history you'd know that, hence the "plantation" reference.  My personal office or profession in life is immaterial, it is the attitude inherent in the "if this was England" (implying that English morals are more vigorous and would have hounded Warner into retirement) that is being discussed. I can be a lawyer living in the US and still take offense to that.  It was a comment directed at the mentality inherent in the comments I referenced and nothing to do with you and your family's personal circumstances.  But of course your mind jumped straight to racism.  As I said, the charge is ridiculous and I'm not about to waste any more time talking about it.

The consider yourself warned talk has to do with you living among and interacting with Trinis on a daily basis... as I made clear when I posted it.  Just as I can read your comments at times and take offense to what I perceive to be a patronizing, sanctimonious tone, so too can someone hear you make the same comments in person and take similar offense.  If you don't like my response online, chances are you'll like the in-person response from the wrong person even less.  That is all it was, nothing more nothing less.

[najee]

I think something have to give....so if that mean missing out 2014 to get the old head out and push Sha-ass and the Comeal out very far from T&T football and start with fresh head from the ground up i'm all for it