Also, at the end of the day none of us no the real truth except those taht are involved, it ois merely speculation for us, so who are we to say he is that or thsi!!!

miss_diddy said:

Also, at the end of the day none of us no the real truth except those taht are involved, it ois merely speculation for us, so who are we to say he is that or thsi!!!

 

Exactly. No more comments made, everyone has had their say rightly of wrongly. Post closed.

Okay, lets look at things a bit more logically.

 

Madders is a real person in clubland. He feels that he's been wronged, by a lot.

 

If someone walked in and took your house of you, would you just say, "Here, have the keys?"

 

No of course you wouldn't!

 

Now he feels the need to get the message out to clubbers - and some of us are Members of Sundissential. To some of us Sundissential is our clubbing home, our local. That doesn't make us sheep - and anyone that thinks it does is wrong. I go to Sundissential, and I go to other big clubs all over the place. I support smaller clubs too - some that will only hold 1,000 people - others that will only hold 150 (and only get 40 people through the door). So do many of my other mates from SS. I support small, local DJs and promotions, and large national ones. I travel all over. I love clubbing, the people and hard house.

 

What's so special about Sundis is that it really is like a family. You wear what you want, be who you are and no-one gives a toss.

 

Now this statement comes from Madders. Some have pointed out that it should have been posted to just the Sundis board. Crock of [censored]. If it had of been posted just to the Sundis board, it would have been removed. The only way to get out a controversial message such as this is to post it in multiple places. Where better than message boards - places that clubbers (Sundis regulars and irregulars) visit daily, or weekly or monthly - but with some frequency.

 

It's easy to say that Madders hasn't consulted lawyers by writing it - but it is pretty coherent and read it a few times and you start to spot things. Yes there's potentially libellous statements in there - but so is there in Sundissential's official reply.

 

I'm waiting for the facts to come out - one way or the other - and they will, given time and with legal proceedings taking place.

 

I keep re-reading both statements over and over - they're not actually saying completely different things to each other - just with a slightly different spin in some cases. The more I read them, the more things I notice.

 

When the facts are outed, I will support whoever has been right legally and/or morally...

I've found an interesting company report of Sundissential Ltd. It's a bit dated (I don't know if it's out of date?), as the statement was issued on the 31/10/01. I found this yesterday afternoon, and was unsure whether to post the information at first...

 

It shows:

 

Directors information:

 

ARGUS NOMINEE DIRECTORS LTD

Corporate Director

(Inactive principal)

 

ARGUS NOMINEE SECRETARIES LTD

Company Secretary

(Inactive principal)

 

MR DANIEL ELLIOTT KIRK

Director

Promoter

 

MR PAUL DAVID MADAN

Company Secretary

Promoter

 

I've removed the addresses of these directors, although in the public domain.

 

It also showed something else rather interesting. Only 1 share exists, to the value of 1 pound:

 

Share structure:

Ordinary: 1 (1 Pound Sterling total) non-voting

 

Who was this share issued to? It can't have been issued to more than one person.

 

If you read through the statements again (which is why I decided to look this information up) you'll notice that Madders has said that Danny issued the company to himself. The Sundissential statement says that Madders *was* a director (in the past?). Neither of these two points contradict each other, and this report actually supports both arguments. But why weren't there at least two shares issued, so one could be given to each of Danny and Madders?

 

Just thought I'd let people know what I'd found...

Bukey, according to Madders' statement, Danny changed it so that he was the only shareholder... Can you find any earlier company reports?

 

Zen - Spineless??? You obviously know me really well then, *deleted due to offensive nature* that you seem to be...

Edited September 30, 200321 yr by fintbeast

 

Zen, Rick - pm or msn. Whatever you fancy...keep it out of here, please.

Edited September 30, 200321 yr by fintbeast

This is a world of free speech? Good just checkin becuase I could'nt agree more with Bukey's comment.

 

I can confirm a few facts, Madders has been on the phone telling me his version.

 

I published the statement on my website, and Sundissential reacted in a very rude and bang out of order way threatening me with legal action. I do understand they're frustration and did reply in writing with a written apology for my actions, but did indicate that there is no need for a legal action.

 

Anywayz, I'm keeping out of this one b4 it sends me more than I already am!

Edited October 1, 200321 yr by Tomo

Tomo said:

 

 

I published the statement on my website, and Sundissential reacted in a very rude and bang out of order way threatening me with legal action. I do understand they're frustration and did reply in writing with a written apology for my actions, but did indicate that there is no need for a legal action.

 

Lets hope we dont one eh!!!!

miss_diddy said:

Tomo said:

 

 

I published the statement on my website, and Sundissential reacted in a very rude and bang out of order way threatening me with legal action. I do understand they're frustration and did reply in writing with a written apology for my actions, but did indicate that there is no need for a legal action.

 

Lets hope we dont one eh!!!!

 

No, we won't... And they would've found that Tomo couldn't have probably been done... He was posting something in the public domain clearly identified as Madders statement, not that of ClubItHard.

 

And we won't... Because each individual that makes a post makes it on the understanding that it's their thoughts, and not that of CTW. And everyone viewing accepts the terms of the site that they are viewing individual's remarks and thoughts, and not that of CTW.

fintbeast said:

Sorry, Ray. I think you're being over the top here. At the end of the day the post has sparked some interest and some of our members will be pleased to have heard both sides of the story. Just because this Madders geezer isn't part of our little 'tribe' doesn't mean that some members of the tribe don't want to hear what he has to say. Just because you're not interested (nor Creamy) doesn't meant to say this thread shouldn't be here...this website is more than a couple of its older members.

 

Ok, fair enough, but what he should have done is put one copy of this statement on a website and posted links to it. And not done that stupid build up post. It's his arrogance that gets me, the fact that he thinks this is 'The biggest scandal in clubland' and everyone's interested, when quite clearly there is a large percentage of clubbers who couldn't give a toss. And I'm going by comments on all the other messageboards, not just this one.

 

Agree 100% with your assessment of Mr. Madders, Ray. And I agree with your comments on his methods and motivations...but not everybody can be as perfect as us, eh? Like I said, there are people on the site who are interested and the rest of us (yes, me included!) can just ignore it...or post posts like this...

 

And I'm still waiting for the infamous FTB 'Who?' post...

Been done. In the build-up post

I'll let you off then...

Good post! im intrested and i think there are enough replies to justify it being here! still somethin doesnt quite seem right about madders!! iv met him a couple of times and hes not exactly all there really!

jon_m said:

Good post! im intrested and i think there are enough replies to justify it being here! still somethin doesnt quite seem right about madders!! iv met him a couple of times and hes not exactly all there really!

 

not a full shilling do u mean jon?