redarmi Staking Issue: Sports betting

[BorntoBubble]

Oh and +1 to hoping this all get's sorted.

I have benefited from Stu's knowledge in the past and also from the knowledge of some of the investors so it would be nice to see this all get sorted in a timely manor.

[The Camel]

I don't think words are watered down, they just mean different things to different people.  This is in addition to the language simply evolving over time.  Though I am the same age as Keith and know lots of big gamblers, I'd use vouch completely differently to him.  That is probably because until very recently our circles never really crossed.  Vouch has always meant the same as reference to me.  I don't think anybody is wrong, and both uses are just as valid.

Good luck on getting the money back.

It is the specific use of the word "vouch". To me it has always been far stronger than a reference or even a commendation.

To vouch for someone you are guaranteeing that person. Exactly the way Tom describes it.

Arb said "why on earth would I do that?".

Well, in the situation I found myself in a player was looking for backing in a specific, one off tournament. The semi famous player who vouched for him had a share, but also was owed significant amount of money. It was in his interests that the player entered the tournament.

I bought a share in the guy I hardly knew because I thought that if he grimmed me the guy who vouched for him would see me right for the money.

But when he did the dirty the famous player refused to accept the debt and I was left being grimmed.

My understanding of the word "vouch" is why I have given plenty of references but virtually never vouched for someone. I accept now though that "vouch" has changed it's meaning and it does mean what I understood it to mean.

Looking at that chat log it must be really uncomfortable reading for arbboy. It does look like he's encouraging Pleno to buy a share for whatever reason. Whether he's doing Stu a favour or whether he thinks with a bigger bankroll Stu is more likely to be successful and arbs investment is worth more.

It is not uncomfortable reading for me in the slightest.  Let me get a few things straight about the whole affair and go back to the start.  Stuart approached me late last year with a spreadsheet and business plan he had written without any input from myself (or anyone else as far as i am aware - Stuart is more than capable of writing a decent detailed business plan from his previous PLC director level appointments in business) for a 6 month staking plan with a view to extending it if it was successful.  His comments were 'people do this in poker why can't it be used for sports betting although no one has ever done it'.  My answer was it can be done if run correctly and i had a look at the numbers and projections were totally reasonable on the basis of sufficient legwork being put in to get the bet volumes on and finding sufficient positive ev bets to invest in.  That wouldn't be a problem as TFT has proven over the years.

It was going to be sports betting only based.  It was a detailed 6 month business plan with cash flow forecasts and bet volumes which all stacked up on paper to being achievable.  If anything i thought the projects were conservative if he was willing to put the leg work into the project getting round the shops to make it work.  His project was based on a £30k investment and to last 6 months then would be reviewed.   He had been struggling over the past few months financially with life expenses and the logic of him having extra investment to do what he was currently doing on a smaller bank roll made sense to provide an increased return for everyone involved.

I said i would take a percentage (it was early January and i had a huge % of my roll tied up in ante post stuff across numerous sports) otherwise i would have invested substantially more.  I knew he would have no trouble shifting the £30k relatively quickly so i said to two profession poker playing/staking friends that i was investing in an opportunity with Stuart.  They both knew of Stuart via myself, BE etc and asked me if the margins were achievable and i said 'yes if the work was put in to get on'.  They both agreed to take decent percentages.  I know Stuart sold other % himself to people who he knew and had financial dealings with including Mrs Bandit and Joe.  Within a couple of days he was pretty much sold out then i got the skype from pads asking about Stu etc out of the blue.  Therefore to imply that i encouraged Pads to invest is not true.  He approached me via skype for my opinion when i have literally one skype convo with pads previously.  I can't even remember how he has my skype previous to this because i have never had any financial or personal dealings with him.  The second point about getting additional investment on board to help boost the return on my % is also nonsense as the business plan was fixed at £30k investment and was never going to go higher so me 'selling' it to pads was irrelevant.  If pads hadn't have taken his % one of my other two guys who were involved would have simply took it.  The bigger of those two investors just said to me 'i will take whatever is left over'.  This was a relatively small staking investment for him.  He stakes numerous poker players for years both live and online so this was totally just another day at the office for him.

The reason the fund failed was from the start Stuart never put in the leg work. It really is as simple as that.  It is debatable whether he ever intended to put in the leg work looking back.  The betting turnover for weeks was at a tenth of the projected business plan and there is no actual proof received that the bets he said he placed were actually placed.  As far as i am aware Stuart hasn't provided any audit trail for where any of the £30k capital has gone to any of the investors since the end of March.

 He wasn't even betting in races/events where there were huge obvious mathematical edges (think 16 runner hcaps in racing for instance).  He came out with excuse after excuse about moving to Dublin for his new job, family issues etc and he got a bit of time to sort that out.  After a couple of months it became more and more obvious that this just wasn't going to happen due to his lack of effort/change in circumstances or just the fact that this money was never raised for this reason and the fund stood at £26k per his daily results sheet.  My two investors alongside myself decided enough was enough and we wanted to end the agreement as Stuart hadn't got anywhere near producing what he had suggested.  We asked for the £26k of the £30k fund to be distributed back to the investors and we would take the £4k loss as a bad bet and move on.  If I hadn't decided to ask questions at this stage and put an end to the stake there would never have been any mention of the £12k being stolen.  This only came to light once I asked for our %'s to be refunded out of the remaining fund.  Stuart has been completely dishonest about this stake since he received the cash.

This was when the bullshit started about £12k being 'stolen' from a friend of a friend , £3k being owed by a poker player who was putting on for him and no mention of where the other £11k was which should literally have been sitting in his bank to repay instantly.  It was pretty obvious when no monies were received in the forthcoming weeks that this had effectively been a £30k interest free loan to Stuart which was needed for whatever reason, maybe we will never know.  He was in no position to repay money even though after all the excuses of £12k being stolen etc etc there still should have been circa £11k sitting in his bank doing nothing now the stake had finished.

I have no doubt if Stuart had done what he had originally planned he would have made the returns his business plan stated.  The bottom line this is all on Stuart to explain why it never happened both from a workload angle on the actual plan itself as he just didn't put the leg work in having easily raised the investment and secondly where the actual money went to.  Every investor was investing their money to get a decent return not to provide an interest free loan to Stuart for 7 months and counting for £30k which is effectively what has happened.  There is no one here, including me, who needs any bad press about this.  Stuart is 1000% in the wrong on every level of this project and should take all the flak.  I actually think we will get our money back over time however the investors are not in business to lend people £30k interest free until it suits them to pay it back.  Sorry to sound harsh but this is the reality of the situation.  The irony of the situation is if he had come to me and said 'I am skint Mark, i can't get a loan from the bank and really need £30k quickly but i can't tell you the reason' i could have gone to the same two investors and they would have happily lent him £30k at commerical interest rates if a legal contract was drawn up to ensure repayment.  We have effectively done the same thing in my eyes but it could have been a lot more civilised for everyone involved.

As Trigg said i don't see why i shouldn't have said what i said having known him well for over 10 years professionally.  

I don't have anything else to say on the matter now the above is all out in the open for all the investors to see.

I thought it was uncomfortable reading because it looks like you are encouraging Patrick to make the investment.

Apart from that, an excellent post.

Stu knows he has fucked up and I am pretty confident/hopeful that he makes good.

But you agree now that given he cold called approached me as someone he has never met IRL or had any financial dealings with and that his investment made no difference to my return or the stake going ahead itself that your claims are untrue that i wasn't in any shape or form trying to induce Pads to invest in this?

I never claimed you vouched for him.

Just checked back through the thread and Mantis brought up the topic of vouching, which has been talked to death on several threads in the past.

I don't think you're on the hook for any of the money Patrick lost, but I do think your endorsement of the venture was a bit over enthusiastic.

Why do i owe anything to a random guy who approaches me out of nowhere who i have never met IRL, had any financial dealings with etc who wishes to use my more detailed knowledge of the situation than his for free to make a better informed investment decision in order for him to selfishly, quite rightly, make a quick buck for himself?  I am pretty fucked off the chat log was posted without pads consulting myself beforehand just like 2 of the other investors are quite fucked off he decided to start the thread on blonde without discussing the issue with the other investors beforehand as they quite rightly said it has the potential to impact their repayments which are substantial bigger than Pads.

Jesus.

How many more times do I have to say I do not think you owe Patrick anything!

[George2Loose]

If Stu had lost all his money betting on the plan then then I don't think you are liable however if he had spent the money punting and not the agreed plan then that's what the person who's vouched for his should feel responsible

[arbboy]

I don't think words are watered down, they just mean different things to different people.  This is in addition to the language simply evolving over time.  Though I am the same age as Keith and know lots of big gamblers, I'd use vouch completely differently to him.  That is probably because until very recently our circles never really crossed.  Vouch has always meant the same as reference to me.  I don't think anybody is wrong, and both uses are just as valid.

Good luck on getting the money back.

It is the specific use of the word "vouch". To me it has always been far stronger than a reference or even a commendation.

To vouch for someone you are guaranteeing that person. Exactly the way Tom describes it.

Arb said "why on earth would I do that?".

Well, in the situation I found myself in a player was looking for backing in a specific, one off tournament. The semi famous player who vouched for him had a share, but also was owed significant amount of money. It was in his interests that the player entered the tournament.

I bought a share in the guy I hardly knew because I thought that if he grimmed me the guy who vouched for him would see me right for the money.

But when he did the dirty the famous player refused to accept the debt and I was left being grimmed.

My understanding of the word "vouch" is why I have given plenty of references but virtually never vouched for someone. I accept now though that "vouch" has changed it's meaning and it does mean what I understood it to mean.

Looking at that chat log it must be really uncomfortable reading for arbboy. It does look like he's encouraging Pleno to buy a share for whatever reason. Whether he's doing Stu a favour or whether he thinks with a bigger bankroll Stu is more likely to be successful and arbs investment is worth more.

It is not uncomfortable reading for me in the slightest.  Let me get a few things straight about the whole affair and go back to the start.  Stuart approached me late last year with a spreadsheet and business plan he had written without any input from myself (or anyone else as far as i am aware - Stuart is more than capable of writing a decent detailed business plan from his previous PLC director level appointments in business) for a 6 month staking plan with a view to extending it if it was successful.  His comments were 'people do this in poker why can't it be used for sports betting although no one has ever done it'.  My answer was it can be done if run correctly and i had a look at the numbers and projections were totally reasonable on the basis of sufficient legwork being put in to get the bet volumes on and finding sufficient positive ev bets to invest in.  That wouldn't be a problem as TFT has proven over the years.

It was going to be sports betting only based.  It was a detailed 6 month business plan with cash flow forecasts and bet volumes which all stacked up on paper to being achievable.  If anything i thought the projects were conservative if he was willing to put the leg work into the project getting round the shops to make it work.  His project was based on a £30k investment and to last 6 months then would be reviewed.   He had been struggling over the past few months financially with life expenses and the logic of him having extra investment to do what he was currently doing on a smaller bank roll made sense to provide an increased return for everyone involved.

I said i would take a percentage (it was early January and i had a huge % of my roll tied up in ante post stuff across numerous sports) otherwise i would have invested substantially more.  I knew he would have no trouble shifting the £30k relatively quickly so i said to two profession poker playing/staking friends that i was investing in an opportunity with Stuart.  They both knew of Stuart via myself, BE etc and asked me if the margins were achievable and i said 'yes if the work was put in to get on'.  They both agreed to take decent percentages.  I know Stuart sold other % himself to people who he knew and had financial dealings with including Mrs Bandit and Joe.  Within a couple of days he was pretty much sold out then i got the skype from pads asking about Stu etc out of the blue.  Therefore to imply that i encouraged Pads to invest is not true.  He approached me via skype for my opinion when i have literally one skype convo with pads previously.  I can't even remember how he has my skype previous to this because i have never had any financial or personal dealings with him.  The second point about getting additional investment on board to help boost the return on my % is also nonsense as the business plan was fixed at £30k investment and was never going to go higher so me 'selling' it to pads was irrelevant.  If pads hadn't have taken his % one of my other two guys who were involved would have simply took it.  The bigger of those two investors just said to me 'i will take whatever is left over'.  This was a relatively small staking investment for him.  He stakes numerous poker players for years both live and online so this was totally just another day at the office for him.

The reason the fund failed was from the start Stuart never put in the leg work. It really is as simple as that.  It is debatable whether he ever intended to put in the leg work looking back.  The betting turnover for weeks was at a tenth of the projected business plan and there is no actual proof received that the bets he said he placed were actually placed.  As far as i am aware Stuart hasn't provided any audit trail for where any of the £30k capital has gone to any of the investors since the end of March.

 He wasn't even betting in races/events where there were huge obvious mathematical edges (think 16 runner hcaps in racing for instance).  He came out with excuse after excuse about moving to Dublin for his new job, family issues etc and he got a bit of time to sort that out.  After a couple of months it became more and more obvious that this just wasn't going to happen due to his lack of effort/change in circumstances or just the fact that this money was never raised for this reason and the fund stood at £26k per his daily results sheet.  My two investors alongside myself decided enough was enough and we wanted to end the agreement as Stuart hadn't got anywhere near producing what he had suggested.  We asked for the £26k of the £30k fund to be distributed back to the investors and we would take the £4k loss as a bad bet and move on.  If I hadn't decided to ask questions at this stage and put an end to the stake there would never have been any mention of the £12k being stolen.  This only came to light once I asked for our %'s to be refunded out of the remaining fund.  Stuart has been completely dishonest about this stake since he received the cash.

This was when the bullshit started about £12k being 'stolen' from a friend of a friend , £3k being owed by a poker player who was putting on for him and no mention of where the other £11k was which should literally have been sitting in his bank to repay instantly.  It was pretty obvious when no monies were received in the forthcoming weeks that this had effectively been a £30k interest free loan to Stuart which was needed for whatever reason, maybe we will never know.  He was in no position to repay money even though after all the excuses of £12k being stolen etc etc there still should have been circa £11k sitting in his bank doing nothing now the stake had finished.

I have no doubt if Stuart had done what he had originally planned he would have made the returns his business plan stated.  The bottom line this is all on Stuart to explain why it never happened both from a workload angle on the actual plan itself as he just didn't put the leg work in having easily raised the investment and secondly where the actual money went to.  Every investor was investing their money to get a decent return not to provide an interest free loan to Stuart for 7 months and counting for £30k which is effectively what has happened.  There is no one here, including me, who needs any bad press about this.  Stuart is 1000% in the wrong on every level of this project and should take all the flak.  I actually think we will get our money back over time however the investors are not in business to lend people £30k interest free until it suits them to pay it back.  Sorry to sound harsh but this is the reality of the situation.  The irony of the situation is if he had come to me and said 'I am skint Mark, i can't get a loan from the bank and really need £30k quickly but i can't tell you the reason' i could have gone to the same two investors and they would have happily lent him £30k at commerical interest rates if a legal contract was drawn up to ensure repayment.  We have effectively done the same thing in my eyes but it could have been a lot more civilised for everyone involved.

As Trigg said i don't see why i shouldn't have said what i said having known him well for over 10 years professionally.  

I don't have anything else to say on the matter now the above is all out in the open for all the investors to see.

I thought it was uncomfortable reading because it looks like you are encouraging Patrick to make the investment.

Apart from that, an excellent post.

Stu knows he has fucked up and I am pretty confident/hopeful that he makes good.

But you agree now that given he cold called approached me as someone he has never met IRL or had any financial dealings with and that his investment made no difference to my return or the stake going ahead itself that your claims are untrue that i wasn't in any shape or form trying to induce Pads to invest in this?

I never claimed you vouched for him.

Just checked back through the thread and Mantis brought up the topic of vouching, which has been talked to death on several threads in the past.

I don't think you're on the hook for any of the money Patrick lost, but I do think your endorsement of the venture was a bit over enthusiastic.

Why do i owe anything to a random guy who approaches me out of nowhere who i have never met IRL, had any financial dealings with etc who wishes to use my more detailed knowledge of the situation than his for free to make a better informed investment decision in order for him to selfishly, quite rightly, make a quick buck for himself?  I am pretty fucked off the chat log was posted without pads consulting myself beforehand just like 2 of the other investors are quite fucked off he decided to start the thread on blonde without discussing the issue with the other investors beforehand as they quite rightly said it has the potential to impact their repayments which are substantial bigger than Pads.

Jesus.

How many more times do I have to say I do not think you owe Patrick anything!

I agree you think that but my point is at the various people on here who think i should be on the hook for it by providing a total stranger with an opinion for free who cold called me.  Can they explain why this should be the case?

[BorntoBubble]

If Stu had lost all his money betting on the plan then then I don't think you are liable however if he had spent the money punting and not the agreed plan then that's what the person who's vouched for his should feel responsible

The chat log to me looks massively like a recommendation, not a vouch though so I am not sure how this is an issue.

We know Arrboy is passionate about everything he does and maybe in some peoples eyes he went over the top in his recommendation, I dont, but i dont see how that chat log could be taken as a vouch!

[the sicilian]

I just find it amazing someone would hand over a considerable amount of money to someone they had never met on the rudimentary say so of someone else they have never met/little dealings with

[BorntoBubble]

I just find it amazing someone would hand over a considerable amount of money to someone they had never met on the rudimentary say so of someone else they have never met/little dealings with

A "considerable amount of money" will be different to each person, it is not just in the gambling world people lose out on these deals.

People get "grimmed" day in day out.

I would imagine each one of these backers would have understood the risk of the money going missing, understood the risk of the money being lost gambling and understood the upside. All of the people who's names have been mentioned I would say have good judgement and thats why I hope it all gets sorted but sometimes well it doesent and people have to move on and take it on the chin as a lesson learnt.

I have a "debt" book of thousands in work that I have to chase for, I took on a job understood the risks and sometimes people wont pay. I will move on in life and learn not to do business with those people again.

[arbboy]

I just find it amazing someone would hand over a considerable amount of money to someone they had never met on the rudimentary say so of someone else they have never met/little dealings with

There is a very logical reason.  Risk/reward. Pads, like all the other investors, make a living investing money and should calculate risk/reward accordingly.  If the plan had been executed properly by Stu we would have all had a great +EV investment and a win/win for everyone, including Stu, involved.  We could easily have still lost the entire £30k through the business plan.  However the business plan didn't involve someone not executing it and just turning it into a £30k interest free loan.

This is obviously aftertiming and results orientated because the hundreds of projects like this which pads and my investors go into every day/week/month which work successfully you never hear about so all the people who make statements like the above are just being results orientated with their comments.  They never say it about the 99% of successful projects mainly because they never hear about them to comment.

[DungBeetle]

I think it depends on whether you vouch for the person's good character or vouch for the investment imo, if it's the latter then you are guaranteeing the amount should the person default.

Fair enough - but then we are back to the point of why would anyone vouch for the investment if they are getting nothing in return.  In a community where EV is talked about often, why are people selling credit insurance for zero premiums?

This is the whole point. 99% of the time you wouldn't dream of it. But. If it was a very good friend who you wanted to help and trusted absolutely and beyond doubt to the extent that if you were wrong you would accept responsibility then you would.

Fair enough Red - I guess it's simply the point you initially made that "vouch" means different things to different people.

[celtic]

Has anyone called the police?

[arbboy]

Has anyone called the police?

No which was a big issue with the investors when the £12k had been stolen by a friend of a friend but when asked if the Police had been informed Stu choose not to comment.  It was pretty much at this point i knew the £30k had turned into an interest free loan.

[The Camel]

I don't think words are watered down, they just mean different things to different people.  This is in addition to the language simply evolving over time.  Though I am the same age as Keith and know lots of big gamblers, I'd use vouch completely differently to him.  That is probably because until very recently our circles never really crossed.  Vouch has always meant the same as reference to me.  I don't think anybody is wrong, and both uses are just as valid.

Good luck on getting the money back.

It is the specific use of the word "vouch". To me it has always been far stronger than a reference or even a commendation.

To vouch for someone you are guaranteeing that person. Exactly the way Tom describes it.

Arb said "why on earth would I do that?".

Well, in the situation I found myself in a player was looking for backing in a specific, one off tournament. The semi famous player who vouched for him had a share, but also was owed significant amount of money. It was in his interests that the player entered the tournament.

I bought a share in the guy I hardly knew because I thought that if he grimmed me the guy who vouched for him would see me right for the money.

But when he did the dirty the famous player refused to accept the debt and I was left being grimmed.

My understanding of the word "vouch" is why I have given plenty of references but virtually never vouched for someone. I accept now though that "vouch" has changed it's meaning and it does mean what I understood it to mean.

Looking at that chat log it must be really uncomfortable reading for arbboy. It does look like he's encouraging Pleno to buy a share for whatever reason. Whether he's doing Stu a favour or whether he thinks with a bigger bankroll Stu is more likely to be successful and arbs investment is worth more.

It is not uncomfortable reading for me in the slightest.  Let me get a few things straight about the whole affair and go back to the start.  Stuart approached me late last year with a spreadsheet and business plan he had written without any input from myself (or anyone else as far as i am aware - Stuart is more than capable of writing a decent detailed business plan from his previous PLC director level appointments in business) for a 6 month staking plan with a view to extending it if it was successful.  His comments were 'people do this in poker why can't it be used for sports betting although no one has ever done it'.  My answer was it can be done if run correctly and i had a look at the numbers and projections were totally reasonable on the basis of sufficient legwork being put in to get the bet volumes on and finding sufficient positive ev bets to invest in.  That wouldn't be a problem as TFT has proven over the years.

It was going to be sports betting only based.  It was a detailed 6 month business plan with cash flow forecasts and bet volumes which all stacked up on paper to being achievable.  If anything i thought the projects were conservative if he was willing to put the leg work into the project getting round the shops to make it work.  His project was based on a £30k investment and to last 6 months then would be reviewed.   He had been struggling over the past few months financially with life expenses and the logic of him having extra investment to do what he was currently doing on a smaller bank roll made sense to provide an increased return for everyone involved.

I said i would take a percentage (it was early January and i had a huge % of my roll tied up in ante post stuff across numerous sports) otherwise i would have invested substantially more.  I knew he would have no trouble shifting the £30k relatively quickly so i said to two profession poker playing/staking friends that i was investing in an opportunity with Stuart.  They both knew of Stuart via myself, BE etc and asked me if the margins were achievable and i said 'yes if the work was put in to get on'.  They both agreed to take decent percentages.  I know Stuart sold other % himself to people who he knew and had financial dealings with including Mrs Bandit and Joe.  Within a couple of days he was pretty much sold out then i got the skype from pads asking about Stu etc out of the blue.  Therefore to imply that i encouraged Pads to invest is not true.  He approached me via skype for my opinion when i have literally one skype convo with pads previously.  I can't even remember how he has my skype previous to this because i have never had any financial or personal dealings with him.  The second point about getting additional investment on board to help boost the return on my % is also nonsense as the business plan was fixed at £30k investment and was never going to go higher so me 'selling' it to pads was irrelevant.  If pads hadn't have taken his % one of my other two guys who were involved would have simply took it.  The bigger of those two investors just said to me 'i will take whatever is left over'.  This was a relatively small staking investment for him.  He stakes numerous poker players for years both live and online so this was totally just another day at the office for him.

The reason the fund failed was from the start Stuart never put in the leg work. It really is as simple as that.  It is debatable whether he ever intended to put in the leg work looking back.  The betting turnover for weeks was at a tenth of the projected business plan and there is no actual proof received that the bets he said he placed were actually placed.  As far as i am aware Stuart hasn't provided any audit trail for where any of the £30k capital has gone to any of the investors since the end of March.

 He wasn't even betting in races/events where there were huge obvious mathematical edges (think 16 runner hcaps in racing for instance).  He came out with excuse after excuse about moving to Dublin for his new job, family issues etc and he got a bit of time to sort that out.  After a couple of months it became more and more obvious that this just wasn't going to happen due to his lack of effort/change in circumstances or just the fact that this money was never raised for this reason and the fund stood at £26k per his daily results sheet.  My two investors alongside myself decided enough was enough and we wanted to end the agreement as Stuart hadn't got anywhere near producing what he had suggested.  We asked for the £26k of the £30k fund to be distributed back to the investors and we would take the £4k loss as a bad bet and move on.  If I hadn't decided to ask questions at this stage and put an end to the stake there would never have been any mention of the £12k being stolen.  This only came to light once I asked for our %'s to be refunded out of the remaining fund.  Stuart has been completely dishonest about this stake since he received the cash.

This was when the bullshit started about £12k being 'stolen' from a friend of a friend , £3k being owed by a poker player who was putting on for him and no mention of where the other £11k was which should literally have been sitting in his bank to repay instantly.  It was pretty obvious when no monies were received in the forthcoming weeks that this had effectively been a £30k interest free loan to Stuart which was needed for whatever reason, maybe we will never know.  He was in no position to repay money even though after all the excuses of £12k being stolen etc etc there still should have been circa £11k sitting in his bank doing nothing now the stake had finished.

I have no doubt if Stuart had done what he had originally planned he would have made the returns his business plan stated.  The bottom line this is all on Stuart to explain why it never happened both from a workload angle on the actual plan itself as he just didn't put the leg work in having easily raised the investment and secondly where the actual money went to.  Every investor was investing their money to get a decent return not to provide an interest free loan to Stuart for 7 months and counting for £30k which is effectively what has happened.  There is no one here, including me, who needs any bad press about this.  Stuart is 1000% in the wrong on every level of this project and should take all the flak.  I actually think we will get our money back over time however the investors are not in business to lend people £30k interest free until it suits them to pay it back.  Sorry to sound harsh but this is the reality of the situation.  The irony of the situation is if he had come to me and said 'I am skint Mark, i can't get a loan from the bank and really need £30k quickly but i can't tell you the reason' i could have gone to the same two investors and they would have happily lent him £30k at commerical interest rates if a legal contract was drawn up to ensure repayment.  We have effectively done the same thing in my eyes but it could have been a lot more civilised for everyone involved.

As Trigg said i don't see why i shouldn't have said what i said having known him well for over 10 years professionally.  

I don't have anything else to say on the matter now the above is all out in the open for all the investors to see.

I thought it was uncomfortable reading because it looks like you are encouraging Patrick to make the investment.

Apart from that, an excellent post.

Stu knows he has fucked up and I am pretty confident/hopeful that he makes good.

But you agree now that given he cold called approached me as someone he has never met IRL or had any financial dealings with and that his investment made no difference to my return or the stake going ahead itself that your claims are untrue that i wasn't in any shape or form trying to induce Pads to invest in this?

I never claimed you vouched for him.

Just checked back through the thread and Mantis brought up the topic of vouching, which has been talked to death on several threads in the past.

I don't think you're on the hook for any of the money Patrick lost, but I do think your endorsement of the venture was a bit over enthusiastic.

Why do i owe anything to a random guy who approaches me out of nowhere who i have never met IRL, had any financial dealings with etc who wishes to use my more detailed knowledge of the situation than his for free to make a better informed investment decision in order for him to selfishly, quite rightly, make a quick buck for himself?  I am pretty fucked off the chat log was posted without pads consulting myself beforehand just like 2 of the other investors are quite fucked off he decided to start the thread on blonde without discussing the issue with the other investors beforehand as they quite rightly said it has the potential to impact their repayments which are substantial bigger than Pads.

Jesus.

How many more times do I have to say I do not think you owe Patrick anything!

I agree you think that but my point is at the various people on here who think i should be on the hook for it by providing a total stranger with an opinion for free who cold called me.  Can they explain why this should be the case?

I came up with two possible reasons off the top of my head.

1. You are good friends with the person being staked and they wouldn't get staked/lent money if you didn't do it.
2. The guy getting staked makes money from the venture and is able to pay you back what he owes you.

I'm sure there are more.

It's clear from your apparent incredulous reaction there is nobody on the planet that you'd vouch for and that is your choice. Fair enough.

But don't assume everyone has your set of values. I have vouched for one person in my life and he didn't let me down. There are maybe 4 or 5 others I'd do it for, and I'm as certain as I can be they would not let me down either.

[arbboy]

Did you vouch for said person to a total stranger you had never met irl or had any financial dealings with?  I will probably correctly assume you didn't.

[The Camel]

Did you vouch for said person to a total stranger you had never met irl or had any financial dealings with?  I will probably correctly assume you didn't.

It doesn't matter who I made the vouch to, because I'm trusting my friend, not the guy I'm giving the guarantee to.

[DungBeetle]

Come on Camel - there shouldn't be a negative light on people's values that they aren't willing to underwrite the credit risk of others?  It's not a character issue.