DavidH

Merely a suggestion, but if it's really necessary (and is allowed under site rules) do it in a separate thread - things like this can result in pages of data that are difficult to wade through.

Is this the statement of affairs linked to on the very first page of this topic, about which the majority of the discussion has been (bar side-tracks on cake or loco running qualities), or have you found another one?

No claim, but a forum assumption created by statements like this?

Or did he? Quite easy to mock up a CAD-style drawing in Photoshop or similar programme if you have the knowledge, and require an image for your product announcements. No intent to deceive, I should add, just a wish to make the product announcement look better. Dave spun us the idea that crowdfunding simply meant he could slip in a non-main range model and do it quicker. I'm afraid that despite a few sceptical voices at the time, most accepted this.

Possibly, because in Dave's interpretation of bookkeeping, this was simply income that is now spent? Regardless of the right and wrong way of doing it, if you're treating the deposits as income for the company then presumably you won't list it as a liability once it's gone (regardless of statements made on here that the money was for a particular model [he did say the money was ring-fenced, didn't he? Or was that another collective assumption, like the re-mortage?]). I think that's an assumption based on reports from possibly two or three people here, and your reading of their interpretation of the response they got from the liquidator. The person with DJM on their desk will have other work, and they'll do a bit at a time as information comes in. It's early days. Who knows what they turn up in time - or, they'll do the statutory minimum because there aren't enough assets to pay for their time to do any more? Quite a lot of RMWebbers said exactly that when they were signing up for APTs and were being warned about the lax documentation or other issues. Other than the people who have already said they've got it back or are getting it back?

"But in April, the company's shares took a hit after it announced plans to wind down a fund that financed a number of small business loans." (from the BBC article) Coincidence? It might have set in motion a train of events, or it may not.

Paypal tells you the name of the account you are paying in the receipt and in your activity statement. What you can't tell (as far as I know) is how the account you are paying is set up - business or personal. A quick online search doesn't throw up any advice - it's all about how do you tell if your own account is business or personal.

Talking of statements and while it was up on my screen just now, I noticed the tick boxes. I thought we were working off the assumption that Dave had called in the liquidators? Apologies if I missed the discussion. Appointment was made by the/one of the creditors.

Interesting. As far as I originally interpreted it, it's the initial statement as provided by and signed off by DJM. The pdf on companies house says clearly it is the director's statement, and Andy York clarified it as well. It's dated 30 May (see below); the company voted to wind up on 4 June; the liquidator was confirmed on 4 June (these other two dates are all on companies house); the liquidator's signature on this document is then 5 June. Are you saying that the liquidator did all the bold stuff in your posting before their (official) appointment and then signed it off as the director's statement?

The realisable value came from DJM not the liquidators, as said a few pages back:

It did, but people have to be willing to listen.

Would that be the factory making the model that Kernow requested advance payment for a while back? Was that the gate stock or the Bulleid diesels?

The problem with these back of the envelope calculations is how would anyone other than Dave, his "accountant" and now the liquidator know that these are accurate figures? I'll make a small prediction: the numbers signed up for the APT barely touch half those numbers. That might then explain why he was trying to get new sign-ups so recently rather than accepting defeat earlier: one last attempt to get enough sign-ups to cover whichever CAD or tooling bill he was about to commit to. However, the problem for Dave being that as he used RMWeb almost exclusively as his active marketing channel, and then withdrew from it, he was pretty much limited recently to marketing to his own customers. But there is one - £50,000. Bear with me, but is there a reason why this can't be the crowdfunded money, rather than deferred salary?

That statement is Dave's statement - yes the liquidator name is at the front, but Dave's signed it off. See page 2.

If discussion about Dave's finances and plans had not been overwhelmed by this sort of attitude before it dug down deep enough to reveal what is now coming out ... just maybe Dave would have listened. It's never just playing trains when hundreds of thousands of pounds are involved.

That's what I think too - although when it was loaned, and whether it was left out of early accounts is a moot point that only someone like the liquidator will be able to ascertain. I don't recall this point ever being satisfactorily answered even when Dave was still willing to answer questions here.

It's more likely, I feel, to be the money with which he started the company. He's going to have drawn a salary/taken a dividend - presumably - and taken expenses, but the loan would remain until paid (he pays himself) back. I'm assuming that, like other much larger companies do, it suits his tax situation to have a loan outstanding with the company. It'll be whatever is most tax efficient I expect. At least, that is what I've assumed.

His partner. Best to leave her out of it?

Where is the "ringfenced" crowdfunders' money?

It isn't, but the DJM model assumes the cab narrows to a straight front edge, whereas the Hornby one carries the bodyside curve to the front, like the real thing.

This could be true, because their standard of engineering is better than that on certain other recent 00 models, or it could be that they never had to stand the cost of all those reported 14XX returns.

There are a couple of impressive pictures of northern lights in Iceland in there, however.

It's only the 1950s in our model railways, you know.

In that case, whatever you do, don't search Facebook or elsewhere for "DJ models". I did once, but I think I got away with it.

Crazy man! Why would you want to check your phone this early anyway? Do you get paid overtime for that? What happened to the other moderators?