Keeping track of $$ since Tim Kee

[Bakes]

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.

[Football supporter]

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.

[Football supporter]

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. 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. 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?




 

 

 

[Bakes]

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.

[Football supporter]

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.

[Bakes]

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.

[Football supporter]

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.

[Bakes]

I'm moving on bro... I answered your question, I'm sure still not to your satisfaction, but this is getting tedious.

[asylumseeker]

I waiting to see if Sancho will run for a seat this election 

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.   

[FF]

I have a gently worn bridge in Brooklyn for sale. PM for details

[Football supporter]

I waiting to see if Sancho will run for a seat this election 

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."

[Bakes]

Well at least now we know he's an opportunist.

[asylumseeker]

"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. 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.

[asylumseeker]

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.